<?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 928 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165127</link>
    <description>An amendment extending the limitation period for reassessment of escaped turnover was treated as part of the procedural machinery, not the charging provision, so it operated retrospectively. On that basis, reassessment notices issued after the amendment could validly apply to earlier assessment periods, provided they fell within the extended five-year period. The challenge based on limitation therefore failed because the notice in question was not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 928 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165127</link>
      <description>An amendment extending the limitation period for reassessment of escaped turnover was treated as part of the procedural machinery, not the charging provision, so it operated retrospectively. On that basis, reassessment notices issued after the amendment could validly apply to earlier assessment periods, provided they fell within the extended five-year period. The challenge based on limitation therefore failed because the notice in question was not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>