<?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>1989 (10) TMI 224 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157031</link>
    <description>The note examines three procedural questions under the sales tax framework: failure to issue Form ST-17 before assessment was not treated as fatal because the objection was raised for the first time in writ proceedings; notice in Form ST-65 was held to be directory, not mandatory, where repeated notices had already given the assessee an opportunity to explain and no prejudice was shown; and penalty proceedings could be initiated before assessment was completed, as the governing provision did not make prior completion of assessment a condition precedent. The writ petition was therefore dismissed and the interim directions vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:42:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 224 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157031</link>
      <description>The note examines three procedural questions under the sales tax framework: failure to issue Form ST-17 before assessment was not treated as fatal because the objection was raised for the first time in writ proceedings; notice in Form ST-65 was held to be directory, not mandatory, where repeated notices had already given the assessee an opportunity to explain and no prejudice was shown; and penalty proceedings could be initiated before assessment was completed, as the governing provision did not make prior completion of assessment a condition precedent. The writ petition was therefore dismissed and the interim directions vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>