https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163118 Review jurisdiction was treated as available where the earlier order rested on a mistaken understanding of the respondents' case and the scope of section 74(5)(a)(ii) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, because a court may correct an order founded on misconception of fact or law. On the seizure issue, the expression "not accounted for" was construed to require complete absence of entry in the dealer's books or records, not merely misclassification or underassessment. Since the goods were reflected in the stock register, the statutory precondition for seizure was absent, and the consequential show-cause notice, being dependent on that seizure, could not stand. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163118 Review jurisdiction was treated as available where the earlier order rested on a mistaken understanding of the respondents' case and the scope of section 74(5)(a)(ii) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, because a court may correct an order founded on misconception of fact or law. On the seizure issue, the expression "not accounted for" was construed to require complete absence of entry in the dealer's books or records, not merely misclassification or underassessment. Since the goods were reflected in the stock register, the statutory precondition for seizure was absent, and the consequential show-cause notice, being dependent on that seizure, could not stand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163118