<?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>1997 (8) TMI 467 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159315</link>
    <description>A return under the Assam General Sales Tax Act is valid only if filed in conformity with the Act and Rules, including payment of the admitted tax in the prescribed manner and within time. Where the dealer failed to make full payment despite repeated notices and extensions, the return was treated as non-compliant and the assessing officer could proceed to best judgment assessment under section 17(5). The court also noted that notices, warnings, and further time satisfied the requirement of opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, no equitable basis was shown for interference under Article 226, and the statutory assessment and recovery process was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:22:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 467 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159315</link>
      <description>A return under the Assam General Sales Tax Act is valid only if filed in conformity with the Act and Rules, including payment of the admitted tax in the prescribed manner and within time. Where the dealer failed to make full payment despite repeated notices and extensions, the return was treated as non-compliant and the assessing officer could proceed to best judgment assessment under section 17(5). The court also noted that notices, warnings, and further time satisfied the requirement of opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, no equitable basis was shown for interference under Article 226, and the statutory assessment and recovery process was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>