9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,000 was made in course of closure of the business and, therefore, should not be liable to tax and the assessment itself is barred by limitation, because the demand notice in form VII was issued on October 7, 1994 and received on November 1, 1994, that too without a copy of assessment order which was required to be sent in accordance with rule 56C of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 as in force at that time. Thereafter, upon application, applicants procured a copy of the assessment order on November 7, 1994. The case of the applicants is that the second appellate order from the original assessment for the same period was made on December 27, 1989, but the demand notice was served on November 1, 1994 after expiry of the period of four years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athe] by submitting that there were specific rules framed under the Acts of Madras and Kerala for giving exemption for sales of entire business. Similarly, Mr. Goswami submitted that some other decisions referred to by Mr. Bose are not relevant. As regards limitation, the case of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the notice of demand was served late due to inadvertence and overlooking, though the same was ready on October 1, 1993. Mr. Goswami has argued that the hearing of the assessment case was concluded on August 18, 1993, when the representatives of the applicants appeared before assessing officer and thereafter the assessment order was made on August 25, 1993 within four years from the date of the second appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1957 and he passed an order adverse to the assessee, appearing as if the order has been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served on the assessee on November 21, 1973, namely, 10 months after making of the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner dated January 6, 1973. That was beyond four years from the date of the original assessment order in September, 1969. On such facts, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made and that it could have been made after expiry of the period of four years prescribed for passing such an order in revision. On the basis of such a presumption which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of business and incidental or ancillary to the business, or those were in the course of closure of the business. There, Mr. Goswami has argued by referring to paragraph 5 of the deed of agreement dated March 25, 1974 that the sales of the movables had actually taken place prior to the sales of the immovables and prior to execution of the deed of agreement and, therefore, the sales have taken place in course of business and not in course of closure thereof. But as already said, we are not going into that question, because the application succeeds on the question of limitation. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned assessment purportedly dated August 25, 1993, for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1975 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
