<?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>2003 (2) TMI 458 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161619</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was sustained where recorded reasons were based on inquiry material showing that the builty and invoices relied on in the original assessment were forged, bogus, and linked to non-existent transport companies. Communication of those reasons to the dealer satisfied the reopening requirement, and the assessing authority was entitled to reopen for fresh inquiry on the basis of fraudulent original documents. The notice was not invalid merely because it referred to the repealed Act or used old forms, since the substantive reassessment requirement remained the same and no prejudice was shown. The merger objection also failed because the appellate authority had set aside and remanded the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:02:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 458 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161619</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was sustained where recorded reasons were based on inquiry material showing that the builty and invoices relied on in the original assessment were forged, bogus, and linked to non-existent transport companies. Communication of those reasons to the dealer satisfied the reopening requirement, and the assessing authority was entitled to reopen for fresh inquiry on the basis of fraudulent original documents. The notice was not invalid merely because it referred to the repealed Act or used old forms, since the substantive reassessment requirement remained the same and no prejudice was shown. The merger objection also failed because the appellate authority had set aside and remanded the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>