9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1993 (3) TMI 338 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on denial of opportunity to be heard and arbitrariness, rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation, validity of demand notice specifying a date for payment, permissibility of raising new ground in affidavit-in-reply. Analysis: The case involved a writ petition challenging an assessment order made ex parte, alleging denial of opportunity to be heard and arbitrariness. The applicant's appeal against the order was rejected on the ground of limitation. The applicant contended that the demand notice served on him was invalid as it did not specify a date for payment, as required by Section 11(3) of the 1941 Act. The issue of permissibility of raising this new ground in the affidavit-in-reply was raised during arguments. The Tribunal decided that the non-specification of a date in the demand notice was crucial, making the recovery proceedings invalid regardless of the appeal's limitation status. The Tribunal noted that the finding of limitation by the lower authorities became irrelevant due to the defective demand notice. The demand notice lacking a specified payment date rendered the certificate proceedings invalid. Consequently, the right of appeal against the assessment order revived once a fresh demand notice was served. The Tribunal held that quashing the certificate proceedings necessitated setting aside the demand notice, allowing the applicant to file an appeal upon receiving a new demand notice complying with legal requirements. In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the demand notice received by the applicant and quashing the certificate proceedings. The respondents were directed to serve a fresh notice of demand in accordance with the law. The applicant was given the liberty to file an appeal against the assessment order upon receiving the new demand notice. No costs were awarded in the matter. The Technical Member agreed with the decision, and the application was allowed, concluding the judgment.
|
