https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288712 A notice proposing reassessment of escaped turnover for assessment year 2003-2004 was issued after the four-year period in Rule 6(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, so it was treated as time-barred. Section 9(2) was read as subject to the Act and the Rules, while Section 6A(3) was confined to reassessment in cases involving a dealer's claim of non-liability and discovery of new facts. It did not displace the limitation for escaped-assessment notices, so the challenged notice remained governed by Rule 6(7) and the challenge failed. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288712 A notice proposing reassessment of escaped turnover for assessment year 2003-2004 was issued after the four-year period in Rule 6(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, so it was treated as time-barred. Section 9(2) was read as subject to the Act and the Rules, while Section 6A(3) was confined to reassessment in cases involving a dealer's claim of non-liability and discovery of new facts. It did not displace the limitation for escaped-assessment notices, so the challenged notice remained governed by Rule 6(7) and the challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288712