<?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>2005 (9) TMI 592 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161826</link>
    <description>On remand after revision in a sales tax assessment, the fresh assessment had to be made by the statutory authority competent under the Act, not by a revisional body acting outside its jurisdiction. The Court noted that a remand sends the matter back for reassessment in accordance with law, and that the Sales Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction on the facts because the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. It also held that prior revisional orders had attained finality and could not be altered in the manner directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was therefore not right in directing the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax to pass the final order under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:59:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 592 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161826</link>
      <description>On remand after revision in a sales tax assessment, the fresh assessment had to be made by the statutory authority competent under the Act, not by a revisional body acting outside its jurisdiction. The Court noted that a remand sends the matter back for reassessment in accordance with law, and that the Sales Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction on the facts because the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. It also held that prior revisional orders had attained finality and could not be altered in the manner directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was therefore not right in directing the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax to pass the final order under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>