https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383315 Reassessment under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained without further evidence coming to the prescribed authority's notice after the earlier reassessment. The court distinguished that provision from section 41, which specifically permits rectification to give effect to a court judgment or order within the prescribed time. Because the impugned action was taken under the wrong statutory provision, it was not a mere technical defect: the assessee was entitled to know and meet the correct legal basis. The reassessment orders were quashed, although the Department was left free to proceed afresh under the proper mechanism. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:19:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383315 Reassessment under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained without further evidence coming to the prescribed authority's notice after the earlier reassessment. The court distinguished that provision from section 41, which specifically permits rectification to give effect to a court judgment or order within the prescribed time. Because the impugned action was taken under the wrong statutory provision, it was not a mere technical defect: the assessee was entitled to know and meet the correct legal basis. The reassessment orders were quashed, although the Department was left free to proceed afresh under the proper mechanism. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383315