<?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>2004 (4) TMI 581 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172327</link>
    <description>Later notifications withdrawing the exemption and making de-oiled cake taxable for the relevant assessment years rendered the original omission to levy tax a mistake apparent on the record, so rectification under the sales tax rectification provision was valid. The distinction between rectification and reassessment supported correction of the patent error in the assessment orders, and the challenge to the notices failed. A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition on an earlier judgment did not amount to merger or a merits-based determination, so it did not prevent the authorities from applying the statutory notifications and relevant precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 581 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172327</link>
      <description>Later notifications withdrawing the exemption and making de-oiled cake taxable for the relevant assessment years rendered the original omission to levy tax a mistake apparent on the record, so rectification under the sales tax rectification provision was valid. The distinction between rectification and reassessment supported correction of the patent error in the assessment orders, and the challenge to the notices failed. A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition on an earlier judgment did not amount to merger or a merits-based determination, so it did not prevent the authorities from applying the statutory notifications and relevant precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>