<?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>1974 (10) TMI 108 - High Court Of Allahabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193401</link>
    <description>Rectification under the assessment law is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit re-argument on the merits; on the facts, the original assessment had proceeded under a misapprehension later clarified by subsequent rulings, so rectification was competent. Limitation was held to run from the actual making of the rectification-writing, signing and incorporation in the assessment record within the statutory period-and not from later communication to the assessee, so the rectification was in time. A short notice did not vitiate the order because the assessee was heard and no prejudice from want of fair opportunity was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:04:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (10) TMI 108 - High Court Of Allahabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193401</link>
      <description>Rectification under the assessment law is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit re-argument on the merits; on the facts, the original assessment had proceeded under a misapprehension later clarified by subsequent rulings, so rectification was competent. Limitation was held to run from the actual making of the rectification-writing, signing and incorporation in the assessment record within the statutory period-and not from later communication to the assessee, so the rectification was in time. A short notice did not vitiate the order because the assessee was heard and no prejudice from want of fair opportunity was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>