<?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 (4) TMI 633 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162980</link>
    <description>For dealers granted registration and assigned a TIN under the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, the assessing authority is the assessing authority of the range. An assessment made by a Sales Tax Officer who was not that designated authority was contrary to Rule 34(12)(b) and therefore without jurisdiction. The assessment order was set aside because the statutory scheme vested assessment power only in the specified range authority for that class of dealers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:56:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 633 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162980</link>
      <description>For dealers granted registration and assigned a TIN under the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, the assessing authority is the assessing authority of the range. An assessment made by a Sales Tax Officer who was not that designated authority was contrary to Rule 34(12)(b) and therefore without jurisdiction. The assessment order was set aside because the statutory scheme vested assessment power only in the specified range authority for that class of dealers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>