https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347569 Reassessment under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam was not barred solely because the final order was passed after one year, as the proceedings had been timely initiated and remained pending within the statutory framework. However, the reassessment could not be sustained on mere change of opinion or on the basis of a later classification order that operated prospectively. That later order could not govern assessment year 2006-07, and no independent material supported reopening at a higher rate. The additional tax demand was therefore quashed and the consequential order set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347569 Reassessment under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam was not barred solely because the final order was passed after one year, as the proceedings had been timely initiated and remained pending within the statutory framework. However, the reassessment could not be sustained on mere change of opinion or on the basis of a later classification order that operated prospectively. That later order could not govern assessment year 2006-07, and no independent material supported reopening at a higher rate. The additional tax demand was therefore quashed and the consequential order set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347569