9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment. The assessee is the appellants. 2. The assessee, a dealer of grocery, stationery and miscelaneous goods, was assessed for asst. yr. 1971-72 and for the quarter ending on 30th June, 1972 under s. 12(5) of the O.S.T. Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Asstt. CST who held as follows "Moreover, the appellant has been reassessed under the s. 12(5) of the O.S.T. Act inspite of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the date of liability after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant." It will appear from the aforesaid finding recorded by the Asstt. CST that (i) the assessments under s. 12(5) were bad in law and (ii) the assessee should be reassessed after further enquiry under s. 12(8) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. But as the period of three years has already elpased as indicated above, in other words the assessment have become barred by limitation, it would not be open to the AO any longer to initiate proceedings under s. 12(8) by issue of statutory notice. Therefore, according to law the assessments have become barred by limitation. Instead of remanding the cases, the Asstt. CST ought to have annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
