<?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>1993 (2) TMI 325 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174229</link>
    <description>The court interpreted Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act regarding the limitation period for assessment. It held that amendments to procedural laws, including limitation periods, are retrospective only for pending matters and cannot revive closed cases. The court quashed the Commissioner&#039;s order for re-assessment, affirming that vested rights cannot be divested by subsequent amendments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:23:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 325 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174229</link>
      <description>The court interpreted Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act regarding the limitation period for assessment. It held that amendments to procedural laws, including limitation periods, are retrospective only for pending matters and cannot revive closed cases. The court quashed the Commissioner&#039;s order for re-assessment, affirming that vested rights cannot be divested by subsequent amendments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>