https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375462 Reassessment for escaped turnover under Section 6(5) was upheld for the later assessment years because the provision could operate within the prescribed limitation period despite its later insertion. For 2000-01, reassessment failed because rectification is limited to patent errors and cannot be used to reopen a consciously excluded turnover item or a matter requiring fresh adjudication, and the reassessment was also time-barred. The plea to keep recovery in abeyance pending finalisation and recasting of company accounts was rejected because those accounting issues did not affect the tax basis of the hotel receipts. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:23:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375462 Reassessment for escaped turnover under Section 6(5) was upheld for the later assessment years because the provision could operate within the prescribed limitation period despite its later insertion. For 2000-01, reassessment failed because rectification is limited to patent errors and cannot be used to reopen a consciously excluded turnover item or a matter requiring fresh adjudication, and the reassessment was also time-barred. The plea to keep recovery in abeyance pending finalisation and recasting of company accounts was rejected because those accounting issues did not affect the tax basis of the hotel receipts. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375462