<?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>2006 (4) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197583</link>
    <description>Where an earlier assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction, a notice issued under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is treated as a notice for fresh assessment, not reassessment under Section 21(1). The Court applied the plain language of the statute and the distinction the legislature drew between &quot;reassessment&quot; based on escaped turnover and &quot;fresh order of assessment&quot; after jurisdictional defect. Because the impugned notice followed quashing of the prior assessment and did not rest on reasons to believe turnover had escaped assessment, its validity had to be tested under the fresh-assessment provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197583</link>
      <description>Where an earlier assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction, a notice issued under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is treated as a notice for fresh assessment, not reassessment under Section 21(1). The Court applied the plain language of the statute and the distinction the legislature drew between &quot;reassessment&quot; based on escaped turnover and &quot;fresh order of assessment&quot; after jurisdictional defect. Because the impugned notice followed quashing of the prior assessment and did not rest on reasons to believe turnover had escaped assessment, its validity had to be tested under the fresh-assessment provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>