https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296854 Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as extending the reassessment period, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also noted that, even under the unamended position then applicable, the reassessment for the relevant period was not time-barred. However, reassessment had to follow the statutory tax-period structure, and where the VAT framework treats each calendar month as a tax period, clubbing turnovers across multiple periods and reassessing only March 2006 was inconsistent with the scheme. That defect rendered the reassessment unsustainable and required fresh tax-period-wise adjudication. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Sep 2021 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296854 Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as extending the reassessment period, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also noted that, even under the unamended position then applicable, the reassessment for the relevant period was not time-barred. However, reassessment had to follow the statutory tax-period structure, and where the VAT framework treats each calendar month as a tax period, clubbing turnovers across multiple periods and reassessing only March 2006 was inconsistent with the scheme. That defect rendered the reassessment unsustainable and required fresh tax-period-wise adjudication. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296854