<?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 (2) TMI 794 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162312</link>
    <description>Best judgment assessments could not be sustained because the statutory procedure required prior notice and an effective opportunity of hearing before the power was exercised under section 17(6) and rule 25. The record did not show service of notice in the prescribed form or any real opportunity for the assessee to appear and present its case. The assessment orders were therefore vitiated in law and set aside, with liberty to complete the assessments in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 794 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162312</link>
      <description>Best judgment assessments could not be sustained because the statutory procedure required prior notice and an effective opportunity of hearing before the power was exercised under section 17(6) and rule 25. The record did not show service of notice in the prescribed form or any real opportunity for the assessee to appear and present its case. The assessment orders were therefore vitiated in law and set aside, with liberty to complete the assessments in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>