<?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>1977 (10) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57904</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was invalid where the original assessment had already been revised and the operative revisional order was in force; the Sales Tax Officer was required to proceed before the revisional authority and lacked competence to act independently. The case also did not satisfy the non-disclosure ground for reassessment because the purchase and subsequent dealings were already disclosed in the balance-sheet, ledger and journal, placing all primary facts before the assessing authority. The omission was the authority&#039;s own oversight, not concealment or an incorrect return by the assessee. The reassessment was therefore without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57904</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was invalid where the original assessment had already been revised and the operative revisional order was in force; the Sales Tax Officer was required to proceed before the revisional authority and lacked competence to act independently. The case also did not satisfy the non-disclosure ground for reassessment because the purchase and subsequent dealings were already disclosed in the balance-sheet, ledger and journal, placing all primary facts before the assessing authority. The omission was the authority&#039;s own oversight, not concealment or an incorrect return by the assessee. The reassessment was therefore without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>