https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441864 Section 42(3) of the Jharkhand VAT Act was read as an additional reassessment trigger, not an independent code overriding the general limitation in Section 40(4), so audit-objection reassessment remained subject to the five-year period. Even where no express time limit was stated, reassessment power could not be treated as open-ended and had to be exercised within a reasonable time consistent with the statutory scheme. Penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act required proof of deliberate false representation and mens rea; absent evidence of dishonest conduct and where the levy rested on a ground not put in the notice, the penalty was not legally sustainable. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441864 Section 42(3) of the Jharkhand VAT Act was read as an additional reassessment trigger, not an independent code overriding the general limitation in Section 40(4), so audit-objection reassessment remained subject to the five-year period. Even where no express time limit was stated, reassessment power could not be treated as open-ended and had to be exercised within a reasonable time consistent with the statutory scheme. Penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act required proof of deliberate false representation and mens rea; absent evidence of dishonest conduct and where the levy rested on a ground not put in the notice, the penalty was not legally sustainable. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441864