<?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>1993 (11) TMI 208 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157436</link>
    <description>Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules, jurisdiction of the assessing authority depends on the Commissioner&#039;s area allocation and distribution of business, and the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer may act where jurisdiction exists for the time being. Where the Commercial Taxes Officer had already filed returns, handled earlier years, and issued the assessment notice before a later notification conferred pecuniary jurisdiction on the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, that later notification did not divest the first officer of jurisdiction to complete the assessment. The assessment was therefore not without jurisdiction, and the contrary view was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:35:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 208 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157436</link>
      <description>Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules, jurisdiction of the assessing authority depends on the Commissioner&#039;s area allocation and distribution of business, and the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer may act where jurisdiction exists for the time being. Where the Commercial Taxes Officer had already filed returns, handled earlier years, and issued the assessment notice before a later notification conferred pecuniary jurisdiction on the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, that later notification did not divest the first officer of jurisdiction to complete the assessment. The assessment was therefore not without jurisdiction, and the contrary view was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>