<?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>1992 (1) TMI 344 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188883</link>
    <description>A writ petition to prohibit reassessment proceedings on limitation grounds was not maintainable where the dispute depended on when the remand order was received and whether the reassessment notice fell within the prescribed period under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rules. The Court held that such disputed facts could not be resolved on affidavits in writ jurisdiction, and that limitation objections in assessment matters should ordinarily be raised before the assessing authority. A writ of prohibition lies only on a clear showing of total want of jurisdiction, which was not established; the reassessment proceedings were therefore not interdicted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:00:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 344 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188883</link>
      <description>A writ petition to prohibit reassessment proceedings on limitation grounds was not maintainable where the dispute depended on when the remand order was received and whether the reassessment notice fell within the prescribed period under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rules. The Court held that such disputed facts could not be resolved on affidavits in writ jurisdiction, and that limitation objections in assessment matters should ordinarily be raised before the assessing authority. A writ of prohibition lies only on a clear showing of total want of jurisdiction, which was not established; the reassessment proceedings were therefore not interdicted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>