<?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>1994 (5) TMI 242 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157412</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act can issue only if the taxing authority is prima facie satisfied on definite material that taxable turnover escaped assessment and that the omission is attributable to the dealer. The notice is only the start of proceedings and does not itself confer jurisdiction. The dealer may raise the jurisdictional objection before the authority, which must decide that issue first by a reasoned order and proceed further only if the statutory conditions are met. On that basis, the notice was not quashed, but the petitioner was permitted to contest jurisdiction before the taxing authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:11:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 242 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157412</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act can issue only if the taxing authority is prima facie satisfied on definite material that taxable turnover escaped assessment and that the omission is attributable to the dealer. The notice is only the start of proceedings and does not itself confer jurisdiction. The dealer may raise the jurisdictional objection before the authority, which must decide that issue first by a reasoned order and proceed further only if the statutory conditions are met. On that basis, the notice was not quashed, but the petitioner was permitted to contest jurisdiction before the taxing authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>