9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing given for the said purpose was served beyond three days of such date fixed for the hearing. Nevertheless, the assessing authority, on the foot that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for the hearing of the assessment proceedings, rendered an ex parte assessment order on 30th November, 1964. For the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, a similar notice of hearing of the proceedings was fixed for 25th November, 1964. The petitioner was called upon to produce the books of account on that date. The petitioner wanted time. No time was granted. The result was that the assessing authority assessed the petitioner for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 on 28th November, 1964. It thus finalised the assessments for the four years as above. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitioner, raises a very curious argument. His case is that although the original assessments were made under section 12, by reason of the order of remit made by this court on 3rd March, 1967, in W.P. Nos. 228 to 231 of 1965, it should be deemed that the further proceedings can be done only under section 16 of the Act, and not as if they were assessments under section 12. Reliance is placed upon Jaipuria Brothers Limited v. State of U.P.[1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.). He would, therefore, state that once the proposed assessment pursuant to the impugned notice would come within the purview of proceedings under section 16 of the Act, then the rule of limitation which circumscribes the said section prevails and that if that were to prevail, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory functionary exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. I cannot agree. The order of remit has been made because this court was provoked to do so and an invitation was made for that purpose by the petitioner itself when it sought for the necessary rule under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was aware at all material times that the assessment was under section 12 of the Act. It was not satisfied with the assessment, since it complained that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. It came to this court and corrected the error apparent in the orders impugned in those writ petitions and it was as a consequence of the discovery of such an apparent error that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
