<?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>1999 (11) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160069</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be invoked beyond the normal limitation only on material showing concealment, concealed particulars, or knowingly incorrect returns. Because the sales against form 17A were disclosed, examined, and accepted in the original assessment, and the record showed no concealment, the extended period was unavailable and the notices were time-barred. Retrospective cancellation of the purchasing dealers&#039; licences also could not create a fresh liability or justify reopening where the petitioners had relied on valid certificates at the time of the transactions. The reassessment notices were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:27:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160069</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be invoked beyond the normal limitation only on material showing concealment, concealed particulars, or knowingly incorrect returns. Because the sales against form 17A were disclosed, examined, and accepted in the original assessment, and the record showed no concealment, the extended period was unavailable and the notices were time-barred. Retrospective cancellation of the purchasing dealers&#039; licences also could not create a fresh liability or justify reopening where the petitioners had relied on valid certificates at the time of the transactions. The reassessment notices were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>