https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162186 Section 27(8) and proviso (a) to the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 were construed as part of the same assessment-time-limit scheme, with the proviso only fixing the starting point for fresh assessments arising from court orders. Section 27(9), which authorises extension of the period by notification for recorded reasons, was held to control that limitation framework through its non obstante clause. There was no basis to treat fresh assessments under proviso (a) as a separate category requiring a distinct notification. The notification extending the assessment period under Section 27(9) therefore applied to cases falling under proviso (a), and the limitation objection failed. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:46:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162186 Section 27(8) and proviso (a) to the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 were construed as part of the same assessment-time-limit scheme, with the proviso only fixing the starting point for fresh assessments arising from court orders. Section 27(9), which authorises extension of the period by notification for recorded reasons, was held to control that limitation framework through its non obstante clause. There was no basis to treat fresh assessments under proviso (a) as a separate category requiring a distinct notification. The notification extending the assessment period under Section 27(9) therefore applied to cases falling under proviso (a), and the limitation objection failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162186