<?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>2026 (1) TMI 949 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785193</link>
    <description>The Gauhati HC noted that under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, assessment and audit assessment cannot be initiated after the statutory five-year limitation period. Penalty demand notices for alleged failure to furnish audit reports were therefore barred, because the proviso to Section 39 did not apply on the facts and the authorities could not reopen completed returns after limitation had expired. The Court also held that later audit assessments and consequential tax demands, begun after the limitation cut-off, were illegal and unsustainable. The impugned demand and assessment orders were quashed, and the petitioner&#039;s liability under those proceedings did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=879917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 949 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785193</link>
      <description>The Gauhati HC noted that under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, assessment and audit assessment cannot be initiated after the statutory five-year limitation period. Penalty demand notices for alleged failure to furnish audit reports were therefore barred, because the proviso to Section 39 did not apply on the facts and the authorities could not reopen completed returns after limitation had expired. The Court also held that later audit assessments and consequential tax demands, begun after the limitation cut-off, were illegal and unsustainable. The impugned demand and assessment orders were quashed, and the petitioner&#039;s liability under those proceedings did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>