https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326112 The court quashed the notice dated 9th February 2016 issued under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act and the letter dated 24th February 2016 by the Assistant Commissioner (VAT Audit) as unsustainable. The court emphasized that reasons for reassessment must link to failure to pay tax due to concealment. It also highlighted limitations on the jurisdiction and power of the Assistant Commissioner (VAT Audit) under Section 67(2) of the DVAT Act. The writ petition was allowed, finding the notices unsustainable and lacking valid reasons for reassessment. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326112 The court quashed the notice dated 9th February 2016 issued under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act and the letter dated 24th February 2016 by the Assistant Commissioner (VAT Audit) as unsustainable. The court emphasized that reasons for reassessment must link to failure to pay tax due to concealment. It also highlighted limitations on the jurisdiction and power of the Assistant Commissioner (VAT Audit) under Section 67(2) of the DVAT Act. The writ petition was allowed, finding the notices unsustainable and lacking valid reasons for reassessment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326112