<?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>2006 (11) TMI 564 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162654</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was treated as valid where the Bihar sales tax assessment and the CST assessment concerned the same turnover, the same financial year, and the same dispute over intra-State sale, inter-State sale, and stock transfer. Notices issued while giving effect to the remand order were accepted by the assessee and were held sufficient for reassessment under both enactments. In light of the linked statutory scheme under section 9(2), section 1(2A) of the CST Act and rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957, the absence of a separate CST notice did not defeat jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:51:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 564 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162654</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was treated as valid where the Bihar sales tax assessment and the CST assessment concerned the same turnover, the same financial year, and the same dispute over intra-State sale, inter-State sale, and stock transfer. Notices issued while giving effect to the remand order were accepted by the assessee and were held sufficient for reassessment under both enactments. In light of the linked statutory scheme under section 9(2), section 1(2A) of the CST Act and rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957, the absence of a separate CST notice did not defeat jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>