<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (3) TMI 226 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151497</link>
    <description>The assessing officer having jurisdiction over a dealer&#039;s principal place of business may assess disputed turnover even if the transactions occurred outside that territorial circle, where the statutory definition of place of business and the governing Full Bench view permit such assessment. The jurisdictional objection was therefore rejected. Under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, reassessment notice must be served within the prescribed thirty-six-month period; failure to do so renders the proceeding without jurisdiction and a nullity, and the dealer&#039;s participation cannot cure the defect. Because timely service had not been conclusively found, that question was remitted for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:20:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 226 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151497</link>
      <description>The assessing officer having jurisdiction over a dealer&#039;s principal place of business may assess disputed turnover even if the transactions occurred outside that territorial circle, where the statutory definition of place of business and the governing Full Bench view permit such assessment. The jurisdictional objection was therefore rejected. Under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, reassessment notice must be served within the prescribed thirty-six-month period; failure to do so renders the proceeding without jurisdiction and a nullity, and the dealer&#039;s participation cannot cure the defect. Because timely service had not been conclusively found, that question was remitted for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>