https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365406 Reassessment permission under Section 29(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not stand where it rested on an incorrect factual premise that the appellate authority had allowed the assessee's appeal only on limitation. The appellate record showed that the assessment order had been set aside on both merits and limitation, so the statutory basis for reopening was absent. The pendency of the Department's appeal against the appellate order also meant that the order had not been displaced, and reassessment could not be used to bypass that pending challenge. The High Court accordingly set aside the permission in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:19:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365406 Reassessment permission under Section 29(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not stand where it rested on an incorrect factual premise that the appellate authority had allowed the assessee's appeal only on limitation. The appellate record showed that the assessment order had been set aside on both merits and limitation, so the statutory basis for reopening was absent. The pendency of the Department's appeal against the appellate order also meant that the order had not been displaced, and reassessment could not be used to bypass that pending challenge. The High Court accordingly set aside the permission in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365406