<?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>1975 (5) TMI 86 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175226</link>
    <description>Under the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1961, service of notice within the prescribed two-year period was treated as a mandatory step for initiating valid assessment proceedings. Notices issued after expiry of that period were therefore unsustainable, and assessments could not proceed on those notices. The reasoning also examined whether injunctions or stay orders could extend time, and whether waiver or estoppel could defeat reliance on the limitation period; the dissent regarded the time bar as jurisdictional and relied on the escaped-assessment provision. The impugned notices failed, and the appeals were unsuccessful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (5) TMI 86 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175226</link>
      <description>Under the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1961, service of notice within the prescribed two-year period was treated as a mandatory step for initiating valid assessment proceedings. Notices issued after expiry of that period were therefore unsustainable, and assessments could not proceed on those notices. The reasoning also examined whether injunctions or stay orders could extend time, and whether waiver or estoppel could defeat reliance on the limitation period; the dissent regarded the time bar as jurisdictional and relied on the escaped-assessment provision. The impugned notices failed, and the appeals were unsuccessful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>