<?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 252 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158133</link>
    <description>Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act permits reassessment only where the authority is prima facie satisfied, on definite material, that taxable turnover has escaped assessment and that the omission is attributable to the dealer. The reassessment notice is only the initiating step and does not itself establish jurisdiction. A dealer may contest the existence of the jurisdictional facts, and the taxing authority must first decide that objection as a preliminary issue by a reasoned order before proceeding further with reassessment or penalty. In the matter noted, the notice was not quashed, but the petitioner was allowed to file a reply and the authority was directed to determine jurisdiction first.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:02:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 252 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158133</link>
      <description>Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act permits reassessment only where the authority is prima facie satisfied, on definite material, that taxable turnover has escaped assessment and that the omission is attributable to the dealer. The reassessment notice is only the initiating step and does not itself establish jurisdiction. A dealer may contest the existence of the jurisdictional facts, and the taxing authority must first decide that objection as a preliminary issue by a reasoned order before proceeding further with reassessment or penalty. In the matter noted, the notice was not quashed, but the petitioner was allowed to file a reply and the authority was directed to determine jurisdiction first.</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=158133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>