<?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>2010 (7) TMI 888 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164188</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act can be initiated where the assessing authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that an exemption was wrongly allowed. After the amendment to section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, form F is mandatory for claiming stock transfer exemption, and it must be validly and properly completed. As the proposal, notice and reply all showed that some columns in form F were left unfilled, the initiation of reassessment could not be treated as a mere change of opinion. The reassessment notice was therefore sustainable, and interference under article 226 was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 888 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164188</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act can be initiated where the assessing authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that an exemption was wrongly allowed. After the amendment to section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, form F is mandatory for claiming stock transfer exemption, and it must be validly and properly completed. As the proposal, notice and reply all showed that some columns in form F were left unfilled, the initiation of reassessment could not be treated as a mere change of opinion. The reassessment notice was therefore sustainable, and interference under article 226 was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>