9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Petition to quash assessment orders and demand notice requirement post revision.
Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash exhibit P-3 order of the second respondent and exhibits P-4 and P-5 orders of assessment, arguing that revised assessment orders by the second respondent necessitate a fresh demand notice for tax collection. Citing ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty, the petitioner contended that without a fresh notice of demand, revenue recovery proceedings cannot be initiated. The Government Pleader invoked the Kerala Taxation Laws Act, stating the Act obviates the need for a fresh demand notice post revision. The primary issue was whether a fresh notice of demand is essential when assessment orders are modified by an appellate or revisional authority. Act 23 of 1967 aimed to expedite revenue recovery by eliminating the requirement for a new demand notice after revisions. Section 2(b) defined "Government dues," encompassing various payable sums. Section 3(a) mandated a fresh notice of demand only for enhanced dues, while Section 3(b) exempted the need for a new notice when dues were reduced, requiring only intimation to the assessee. Subsection (2) clarified that no fresh notice is needed if the dues remain unchanged post-appeal or revision. The petitioner's argument that revised assessment orders absolve them from tax liability due to the lack of a fresh demand notice was dismissed. The court held that Act 23 of 1967 precludes the necessity for a new demand notice in cases of revised assessments. Consequently, the petitioner's plea to quash the assessment orders and evade tax payment without a fresh demand notice was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the original petition.
|
