Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 180 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTTaxability of refund of central excise - non service of notice to the partners propertly - who is liable to pay tax - earlier duty of excise was paid by the partnership firm and claimed as deduction – Partnership firm taken over by Company – Who would be liable to pay excise duty, either erstwhile partners or the company – Held that:- The AO could have certainly brought the amount under tax, once it was held that the assessee was not liable to pay excise duty representing that amount - Even if the assessee did not exist, the AO could have proceeded against the partners, duly serving notices upon them - The Tribunal took note of the fact that the issuance of a notice straight away through affixture is not proper - no efforts were made to send the notices to the partners through registered post with acknowledge due and even in the matter of affixture of notices, two defects have crept in viz,affixture was on a totally incorrect premises; and the procedure prescribed for affixture was i.e., taking signature of two persons living in the locality, was not followed - The appellant has no answer for all these defects pointed out by the Tribunal. Bar of limitation – Held that:- If the Department was under obligation to initiate proceedings within a stipulated time, on expiry of the same, the assessee gets a valuable right, in this behalf - The rigour in this regard may be less, if it is a case of expiry of limitation for filing appeals, particularly where there exists a facility for condonation of delay - The Tribunal discussed the matter at length with reference to the settled principle of law and has arrived at a correct conclusion – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against revenue.
|