<?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>1996 (8) TMI 494 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158976</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the assessment order dated July 12, 1995, dismissing the writ petitions challenging it. It affirmed the jurisdiction of the tax authority to impose/levy tax, finding that the assessment was within the assessing authority&#039;s power. The court also ruled that the assessment complied with natural justice principles, rejecting claims of ex parte proceedings. Additionally, it upheld the legality of the pre-requisite deposit for appeal under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and determined that the assessment order was not barred by limitation. The court directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents and allowed pending appeals to proceed on their merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:33:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 494 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158976</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the assessment order dated July 12, 1995, dismissing the writ petitions challenging it. It affirmed the jurisdiction of the tax authority to impose/levy tax, finding that the assessment was within the assessing authority&#039;s power. The court also ruled that the assessment complied with natural justice principles, rejecting claims of ex parte proceedings. Additionally, it upheld the legality of the pre-requisite deposit for appeal under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and determined that the assessment order was not barred by limitation. The court directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents and allowed pending appeals to proceed on their merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>