<?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>1991 (4) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156914</link>
    <description>Section 34 revisional power could not be used to make a first-time assessment of escaped turnover that had never formed part of the original assessment or appellate proceedings; assessment of escaped turnover lay under section 16, and the revisional authority could not assume the assessing authority&#039;s function. The court also held that the limitation for escaped assessment under section 16(1) applied to any proceeding to tax such turnover, including where revision was invoked, and the notice issued after expiry of the prescribed period was time-barred. The revision was therefore unsustainable on both jurisdiction and limitation, and the assessment of the alleged escaped turnover was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:50:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156914</link>
      <description>Section 34 revisional power could not be used to make a first-time assessment of escaped turnover that had never formed part of the original assessment or appellate proceedings; assessment of escaped turnover lay under section 16, and the revisional authority could not assume the assessing authority&#039;s function. The court also held that the limitation for escaped assessment under section 16(1) applied to any proceeding to tax such turnover, including where revision was invoked, and the notice issued after expiry of the prescribed period was time-barred. The revision was therefore unsustainable on both jurisdiction and limitation, and the assessment of the alleged escaped turnover was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>