9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n form No. VII arising out of case No. 156(R) 95-96, is taken up for hearing. 2.. The application bearing No. RN-145 of 2002 is also taken up for hearing along with the present application, since the question of law involved being identical and the fact of the case only differs with respect to the period of assessment. 3.. The order passed in the instant application shall also govern the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tober 31, 1990 to March 31, 1991. The petitioner thus, was asked to make payment after 547 days. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the impugned order of assessment dated July 10, 2000 was passed beyond the statutory period of limitation as provided under section 11, sub-section (2)(a) of the Act, 1941. The demand notice was also received by the petitioner on November 12, 2001, i.e., after more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t furnishing any explanation, it is to be presumed that the impugned order dated July 10, 2000 was passed beyond the statutory period of limitation. In support of his contention learned lawyer relied on the decisions reported in [1994] 93 STC 406 (SC) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Khetmal Parekh and [1996] 101 STC 461 (WBTT); (1996) 29 STA 295 Maftlal Industries Ltd. v. C.T.O.. In the case State of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at where pursuant to an appellate order dated December 27, 1989 reassessment was made on August 23, 1993 and demand notice in form VII was served on November 1, 1994 without any copy of assessment order which was procured on November 7, 1994, the presumption will be that reassessment was not made within the period of limitation. Therefore, the demand notice in form VII and the impugned assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
