<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (4) TMI 138 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394231</link>
    <description>Survey notices issued after inspection under the Rajasthan VAT regime, which only required production of records and explanation of material found, did not amount to initiation of proceedings for limitation purposes. Proceedings commenced only when the competent authority, after considering the survey report, concluded that action was warranted and issued the notice initiating proceedings. The later notice was therefore within time, and the challenge to the initiation of VAT proceedings failed. The order directing registration of the case was also not shown to be under challenge, and no legal infirmity was found in the impugned judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:43:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609341" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 138 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394231</link>
      <description>Survey notices issued after inspection under the Rajasthan VAT regime, which only required production of records and explanation of material found, did not amount to initiation of proceedings for limitation purposes. Proceedings commenced only when the competent authority, after considering the survey report, concluded that action was warranted and issued the notice initiating proceedings. The later notice was therefore within time, and the challenge to the initiation of VAT proceedings failed. The order directing registration of the case was also not shown to be under challenge, and no legal infirmity was found in the impugned judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>