<?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>2015 (5) TMI 338 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259464</link>
    <description>Section 41(7) of the Sales Tax Act was construed as a best-judgment step in aid of assessment, not as an independent assessment regime. Read with Section 42, the time limit in Section 42(1) was held to govern assessments under Section 41(3), 41(4) and 41(5), while the extended periods in Section 42(2) applied only where notice under Section 41(6) had been issued. As no such notice was issued, invoking Section 41(7) did not displace the limitation under Section 42(1), and the assessment was barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2015 07:53:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 338 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259464</link>
      <description>Section 41(7) of the Sales Tax Act was construed as a best-judgment step in aid of assessment, not as an independent assessment regime. Read with Section 42, the time limit in Section 42(1) was held to govern assessments under Section 41(3), 41(4) and 41(5), while the extended periods in Section 42(2) applied only where notice under Section 41(6) had been issued. As no such notice was issued, invoking Section 41(7) did not displace the limitation under Section 42(1), and the assessment was barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>