<?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>2007 (5) TMI 569 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162542</link>
    <description>For dealers registered under the OVAT regime and assigned a TIN, assessment jurisdiction lay with the assessing authority of the range under Rule 34(12)(b), read with the Act&#039;s definition of &quot;assessing authority&quot;. An assessment made instead by the Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, who was not the designated range authority, did not comply with the statutory allocation of power and was therefore without jurisdiction. The assessment order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2014 15:01:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 569 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162542</link>
      <description>For dealers registered under the OVAT regime and assigned a TIN, assessment jurisdiction lay with the assessing authority of the range under Rule 34(12)(b), read with the Act&#039;s definition of &quot;assessing authority&quot;. An assessment made instead by the Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, who was not the designated range authority, did not comply with the statutory allocation of power and was therefore without jurisdiction. The assessment order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>