https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165353 A further reassessment under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is valid only if the order itself discloses the further evidence that triggered the power. The court noted that later objections or affidavits cannot cure a missing jurisdictional basis, and a wrong statutory citation alone does not invalidate the order. Although an appellate remedy was raised, writ jurisdiction was entertained because the foundational precondition for section 39(2) was absent from the order. The further reassessment order was therefore quashed, while the underlying tax liability was left open. en-us Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165353 A further reassessment under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is valid only if the order itself discloses the further evidence that triggered the power. The court noted that later objections or affidavits cannot cure a missing jurisdictional basis, and a wrong statutory citation alone does not invalidate the order. Although an appellate remedy was raised, writ jurisdiction was entertained because the foundational precondition for section 39(2) was absent from the order. The further reassessment order was therefore quashed, while the underlying tax liability was left open. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165353