<?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>1998 (11) TMI 615 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159694</link>
    <description>Section 4-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 required liability-determination proceedings to be completed within twelve months from institution, and the scheme of section 18(6)(a) and rule 52-A showed that this step had to precede assessment. On the stated facts, the proceedings commenced on 27 March 1985 but were concluded only on 3 November 1988, so the determination was made after expiry of the statutory period. The notice issued later merely reflected an already time-barred determination. The challenge to the second proviso to section 39(1) was not examined because it was unnecessary, and the impugned notice/order was quashed as without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:48:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 615 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159694</link>
      <description>Section 4-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 required liability-determination proceedings to be completed within twelve months from institution, and the scheme of section 18(6)(a) and rule 52-A showed that this step had to precede assessment. On the stated facts, the proceedings commenced on 27 March 1985 but were concluded only on 3 November 1988, so the determination was made after expiry of the statutory period. The notice issued later merely reflected an already time-barred determination. The challenge to the second proviso to section 39(1) was not examined because it was unnecessary, and the impugned notice/order was quashed as without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>