<?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>2012 (8) TMI 872 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167837</link>
    <description>A taxing statute prescribing a mandatory limitation period for assessment cannot permit assessment after expiry of that period except where the statute itself allows exclusion for a stay of proceedings by a competent court or authority. Under section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, the explanation excluded only the period during which proceedings were stayed, so delay beyond the prescribed period could not be cured on the facts stated. The Supreme Court authority relied on was treated as distinguishable because the provision there was not shown to be identical. The assessment was therefore held time-barred and the impugned order and consequential proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 872 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167837</link>
      <description>A taxing statute prescribing a mandatory limitation period for assessment cannot permit assessment after expiry of that period except where the statute itself allows exclusion for a stay of proceedings by a competent court or authority. Under section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, the explanation excluded only the period during which proceedings were stayed, so delay beyond the prescribed period could not be cured on the facts stated. The Supreme Court authority relied on was treated as distinguishable because the provision there was not shown to be identical. The assessment was therefore held time-barred and the impugned order and consequential proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>