https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369441 The court remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment of assessment orders challenged for the years 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 due to non-compliance with court directions on mis-match issues. The court emphasized the importance of following guidelines on mis-match problems and directed a fresh assessment with a centralized mechanism to ensure fairness. The petitioner was required to pay 15% of the tax liability for each year, respond to notices within two weeks, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to re-do the assessment within six weeks, providing the petitioner with another opportunity for a personal hearing. en-us Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:39:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369441 The court remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment of assessment orders challenged for the years 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 due to non-compliance with court directions on mis-match issues. The court emphasized the importance of following guidelines on mis-match problems and directed a fresh assessment with a centralized mechanism to ensure fairness. The petitioner was required to pay 15% of the tax liability for each year, respond to notices within two weeks, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to re-do the assessment within six weeks, providing the petitioner with another opportunity for a personal hearing. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369441