<?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 (9) TMI 934 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160688</link>
    <description>Section 11E(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 operated as an overriding deeming provision notwithstanding earlier initiation of assessment under section 11(1), so the deemed assessment for the period ending 31 March 1991 was valid. The reopening under section 11E(2) was also not invalid merely because the show cause notice was issued by one Deputy Commissioner and the final order by his successor, since the proceeding continued on the original prima facie satisfaction. However, reopening for the period ending 31 March 1992 failed because the report relied on did not supply any factual basis for that period, so the statutory satisfaction was unsupported and that reopening was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:45:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 934 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160688</link>
      <description>Section 11E(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 operated as an overriding deeming provision notwithstanding earlier initiation of assessment under section 11(1), so the deemed assessment for the period ending 31 March 1991 was valid. The reopening under section 11E(2) was also not invalid merely because the show cause notice was issued by one Deputy Commissioner and the final order by his successor, since the proceeding continued on the original prima facie satisfaction. However, reopening for the period ending 31 March 1992 failed because the report relied on did not supply any factual basis for that period, so the statutory satisfaction was unsupported and that reopening was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>