https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409547 Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 must be read with the limitation scheme in Section 40, so reassessment cannot be sustained by treating the provisions in isolation. The normal limitation period under Section 40(1) applies unless the strict conditions for the extended period in Section 40(2) are met, namely that the dealer was unregistered and had failed to pay tax or had fraudulently evaded tax so as to attract punishment under Section 79. On the stated facts, those preconditions were not satisfied because the dealer was registered. Reassessment initiated after the prescribed period was therefore beyond limitation, and the limitation question was answered against the Revenue. en-us Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:40:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409547 Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 must be read with the limitation scheme in Section 40, so reassessment cannot be sustained by treating the provisions in isolation. The normal limitation period under Section 40(1) applies unless the strict conditions for the extended period in Section 40(2) are met, namely that the dealer was unregistered and had failed to pay tax or had fraudulently evaded tax so as to attract punishment under Section 79. On the stated facts, those preconditions were not satisfied because the dealer was registered. Reassessment initiated after the prescribed period was therefore beyond limitation, and the limitation question was answered against the Revenue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409547