<?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>2017 (5) TMI 441 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342703</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires the Assessing Authority to have reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that exemption was wrongly allowed, and after expiry of the limitation period, the Commissioner must also be satisfied under Section 29(7). At the permission stage, the authority need not finally decide the merits of the claimed exemption; it must only consider relevant material and apply its mind. On the facts, material from the Special Investigation Branch indicated that the disputed Form-F appeared bogus, the dealer was heard, and its objections were considered. The permission to reopen the assessment was therefore upheld and the reassessment notice challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 441 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342703</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires the Assessing Authority to have reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that exemption was wrongly allowed, and after expiry of the limitation period, the Commissioner must also be satisfied under Section 29(7). At the permission stage, the authority need not finally decide the merits of the claimed exemption; it must only consider relevant material and apply its mind. On the facts, material from the Special Investigation Branch indicated that the disputed Form-F appeared bogus, the dealer was heard, and its objections were considered. The permission to reopen the assessment was therefore upheld and the reassessment notice challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>