<?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 (11) TMI 938 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268129</link>
    <description>The validity of an assessment extension under Section 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 was upheld where the assessee had given written consent for extension on 31 March 2006, the competent authority extended time up to 31 March 2007, and the assessment was completed within that extended period. The court treated the earlier delegation order and the later change in designation from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner as sufficient to establish competence to grant the extension. The contention that the extension order was time-barred failed because the order was made on 31 March 2006, even if it reached the assessing officer later. The review application was therefore not maintainable on limitation and jurisdiction grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:47:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 938 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268129</link>
      <description>The validity of an assessment extension under Section 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 was upheld where the assessee had given written consent for extension on 31 March 2006, the competent authority extended time up to 31 March 2007, and the assessment was completed within that extended period. The court treated the earlier delegation order and the later change in designation from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner as sufficient to establish competence to grant the extension. The contention that the extension order was time-barred failed because the order was made on 31 March 2006, even if it reached the assessing officer later. The review application was therefore not maintainable on limitation and jurisdiction grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>