<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1196 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187041</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax notification under the Assam General Sales Tax Act was construed as operating from 1/5/2001 to preserve continuity after the earlier notification expired on 30/4/2001. The fixed three-year limit ran from the date of issue, but the notification&#039;s language and context showed an intended uninterrupted concessional regime from the earlier effective date. Because no vested right was prejudiced and the transactions during the intervening period already enjoyed the concession, the Commissioner&#039;s clarification and the rectified assessments based on that construction were upheld, and the challenge to the consequential demands failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 12:40:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1196 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187041</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax notification under the Assam General Sales Tax Act was construed as operating from 1/5/2001 to preserve continuity after the earlier notification expired on 30/4/2001. The fixed three-year limit ran from the date of issue, but the notification&#039;s language and context showed an intended uninterrupted concessional regime from the earlier effective date. Because no vested right was prejudiced and the transactions during the intervening period already enjoyed the concession, the Commissioner&#039;s clarification and the rectified assessments based on that construction were upheld, and the challenge to the consequential demands failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>