https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299937 The Court held that respondent No. 4 lacked jurisdiction to pass a fresh assessment order while revisional proceedings were pending before respondent No. 2. The impugned assessment order by respondent No. 4 was set aside, emphasizing the need to address objections raised by parties and ensure proper jurisdictional authority in tax assessment matters. The petitioner's tax liability was contingent on the outcome of the revisional proceedings before respondent No. 2. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jan 2022 07:10:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299937 The Court held that respondent No. 4 lacked jurisdiction to pass a fresh assessment order while revisional proceedings were pending before respondent No. 2. The impugned assessment order by respondent No. 4 was set aside, emphasizing the need to address objections raised by parties and ensure proper jurisdictional authority in tax assessment matters. The petitioner's tax liability was contingent on the outcome of the revisional proceedings before respondent No. 2. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299937