9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition briefly are as follows: The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of sale and purchase of cotton waste yarn at Indore. For the assessment year 1971-72 the petitioner filed return and the respondent assessing authority, by its order dated 13th February, 1975, passed an order of assessment. Thereafter the respondent, acting in exercise of its powers under section 19(1) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why the petitioner should not be reassessed. The petitioner contends that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the notice (annexure G) after the expiry of five years from the date of original assessment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition. 3.. In the return filed on behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the notice (annexure G) issued by the respondent was v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , relied on the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. H.M. Esufali [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC); 1973 MPLJ 858 (SC). 5.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The only question for consideration is whether the notice (annexure G) was issued within the period provided by sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion taking a view contrary to that taken in Jeewakkhan's case (1970) 3 VKN 51 was brought to our notice. It must, therefore, be held that for initiating reassessment proceedings for the second time, time commences to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the date of order of reassessment. In this view of the matter, the reassessment proceedings in this case iniciated by notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
