<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (12) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446480</link>
    <description>A notice for reassessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was held to be time-barred because the six-year limitation period had to run from the deemed assessment date under Section 22(2), namely 30.06.2012. Since proceedings were initiated only on 30.12.2018, they fell outside the statutory period. An action taken beyond limitation was treated as without jurisdiction and a nullity, so the notice was liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 08:55:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446480</link>
      <description>A notice for reassessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was held to be time-barred because the six-year limitation period had to run from the deemed assessment date under Section 22(2), namely 30.06.2012. Since proceedings were initiated only on 30.12.2018, they fell outside the statutory period. An action taken beyond limitation was treated as without jurisdiction and a nullity, so the notice was liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>