<?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 (3) TMI 689 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161662</link>
    <description>Although the sales tax statute prescribed no express limitation period for completing assessments, the assessments still had to be made within a reasonable time. Where the assessee did not file annual returns and no satisfactory explanation was given for the prolonged delay, a delay of more than five or six years could not be treated as reasonable; assessments completed after about 18 to 19 years were therefore barred by unreasonable delay. The extended limitation provisions relied on by the Revenue did not apply, because the assessments had already become time-barred before those provisions could operate. The revisions were accordingly rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:57:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 689 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161662</link>
      <description>Although the sales tax statute prescribed no express limitation period for completing assessments, the assessments still had to be made within a reasonable time. Where the assessee did not file annual returns and no satisfactory explanation was given for the prolonged delay, a delay of more than five or six years could not be treated as reasonable; assessments completed after about 18 to 19 years were therefore barred by unreasonable delay. The extended limitation provisions relied on by the Revenue did not apply, because the assessments had already become time-barred before those provisions could operate. The revisions were accordingly rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>