<?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>1980 (1) TMI 191 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153289</link>
    <description>Section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was construed to permit reassessment not only for escaped turnover but also where disclosed turnover had been under-taxed because deductions or exemptions were wrongly granted on later definite information. The court treated &quot;assess&quot; as encompassing tax liability, and held that earlier allowance of deductions did not bar reopening when the deductions were found to be ungenuine or fictitious. The reassessment notices were also upheld because they disclosed the basis of reopening, referred to the alleged false deductions, and jurisdictional or procedural objections such as venue, short adjournments, and non-supply of copies did not invalidate the proceedings on the facts stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:45:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 191 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153289</link>
      <description>Section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was construed to permit reassessment not only for escaped turnover but also where disclosed turnover had been under-taxed because deductions or exemptions were wrongly granted on later definite information. The court treated &quot;assess&quot; as encompassing tax liability, and held that earlier allowance of deductions did not bar reopening when the deductions were found to be ungenuine or fictitious. The reassessment notices were also upheld because they disclosed the basis of reopening, referred to the alleged false deductions, and jurisdictional or procedural objections such as venue, short adjournments, and non-supply of copies did not invalidate the proceedings on the facts stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>