<?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>1987 (2) TMI 489 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154836</link>
    <description>A final assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be reopened by treating an order in proceedings under the local sales tax law as a remand. The local and Central sales tax proceedings were independent, even though they related to taxability, and finality of the Central assessment barred fresh action on that basis. The revision power under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act was time-bound and had expired, while Section 48(6) conferred only a limited review power and did not authorise reopening a concluded assessment or exercising revisionary jurisdiction. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, the impugned assessment order was held without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:44:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 489 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154836</link>
      <description>A final assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be reopened by treating an order in proceedings under the local sales tax law as a remand. The local and Central sales tax proceedings were independent, even though they related to taxability, and finality of the Central assessment barred fresh action on that basis. The revision power under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act was time-bound and had expired, while Section 48(6) conferred only a limited review power and did not authorise reopening a concluded assessment or exercising revisionary jurisdiction. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, the impugned assessment order was held without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>