<?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>Show-cause notices under Rule 4(2) read with s.31 quashed as impermissible reopening; s.6 and s.22 struck down</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93154</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the impugned show-cause notices issued to the petitioners dated 13.02.2025 and 23.05.2025. The court held the notices under Rule 4(2) read with s.31 of the GVAT Act lacked any communicated opinion or tangible material evidencing turnover escaping assessment, amounting to impermissible reopening and review in the absence of cogent grounds; further the reassessment demands were time-barred under the statutory eight-year limitation. Separately, provisions conferring unfettered discretion (notably s.6 and the exemption in s.22) were declared constitutionally invalid for constituting uncanalised, arbitrary delegation of taxing power without guiding principles or safeguards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Show-cause notices under Rule 4(2) read with s.31 quashed as impermissible reopening; s.6 and s.22 struck down</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93154</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the impugned show-cause notices issued to the petitioners dated 13.02.2025 and 23.05.2025. The court held the notices under Rule 4(2) read with s.31 of the GVAT Act lacked any communicated opinion or tangible material evidencing turnover escaping assessment, amounting to impermissible reopening and review in the absence of cogent grounds; further the reassessment demands were time-barred under the statutory eight-year limitation. Separately, provisions conferring unfettered discretion (notably s.6 and the exemption in s.22) were declared constitutionally invalid for constituting uncanalised, arbitrary delegation of taxing power without guiding principles or safeguards.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>