https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387003 The article explains that earlier writ directions were confined to assessments for 1994-95 to 1997-98 and did not require fresh assessments for 1999-00 and 2000-01. It further states that a claim for exemption on the value of rubble for 1999-00 failed because the assessee did not produce the books, work schedule, work agreement, or other supporting material, so best judgment assessment under Section 5(c) was justified. On limitation, it notes that the 2000-01 assessment was completed within the statutory period under Section 17(6), as amended, and that completion depended on making the order within time, not on later communication. The recovery demand based on those assessments was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387003 The article explains that earlier writ directions were confined to assessments for 1994-95 to 1997-98 and did not require fresh assessments for 1999-00 and 2000-01. It further states that a claim for exemption on the value of rubble for 1999-00 failed because the assessee did not produce the books, work schedule, work agreement, or other supporting material, so best judgment assessment under Section 5(c) was justified. On limitation, it notes that the 2000-01 assessment was completed within the statutory period under Section 17(6), as amended, and that completion depended on making the order within time, not on later communication. The recovery demand based on those assessments was therefore upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387003