|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 68 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 887
Jurisdiction - power of Joint Commissioner (Executive) - whether the said Joint Commissioner (Executive) was not empowered or authorised to exercise the revisional powers as comprised in Section 10-B? - Held that: - A careful reading of Section 10-B would clearly establish that initially the provision empowered the Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner to exercise powers of revision. The words "Deputy Commissioner" was later on amended and substituted by the words "Joint Commissioner" - Essentially therefore, it recognised two classes of officers who could possibly exercise the powers of revision. The first class of course was the Commissioner while the second class was to comprise of such other officers not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner /Joint Commissioner as may have been authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification. The recognition of a revisional power vesting in the Commissioner is not an issue on which there can possibly be any doubt. The fact that the Commissioner did not require a separate authorisation by the State Government or a notification of such authorization is evident from a plain construct of Section 10-B.
Prior to the amendment of Section 2(b), the only difference in position was that the words employed were "Joint Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner". Once Section 2(b) mandates the recognition and inclusion of a Joint Commissioner in the expression "Commissioner", there is, in the opinion and considered view of this Court, no requirement of a separate authorisation or notification of conferment of such authority. Since section 10-B always recognized and conferred powers upon a "Commissioner" all classes of officers and authorities who fell within the ambit of the expression "Commissioner" would have to necessarily be recognized as being statutorily empowered and clothed with the jurisdiction to exercise the powers of revision - Undisputedly, a Joint Commissioner stood included in the expression "Commissioner" as per section 2 (b).
The challenge to the authority of the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers conferred by Section 10-B is misconceived and is liable to be negatived. - revision dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 886
Rate of tax - sale of construction machinery, treating them as capital goods - inter-state sale - vires of Section 2 (11) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - principles of Natural Justice - Held that: - the first respondent was bound to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, and pass a speaking order. It would be incorrect on that part of the first respondent to state that, merely because, vires of Section 2 (11) has been upheld, the petitioner will not heard on merits and are required to remit the differential rate of tax. If this is the interpretation given by the first respondent, it would run contrary to the decision of the Division Bench, dated 05.04.2016, wherein, liberty was granted to file objections to revision notices. This liberty is not an empty formality. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, the first respondent is bound to consider the objections.
In the instant cases, the petitioner specifically sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, which has not been afforded - The Division Bench, in several decisions has observed that, in the absence of specific prohibition under the statute, for affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the Assessing Officer could afford such personal hearing, as it would help the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment in a proper manner.
The impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 885
Rectification of assessment order - whether the subject issue is an error, which could be rectified by the assessing officer invoking Section 55 of the TNGST Act and as to how the taxable turnover has to be computed? - Held that: - it cannot be stated that the power under Section 55 of the TNGST Act can be exercised only for the purpose of rectifying clerical mistakes or typographical mistakes. In the instant case, the mistake sought to be rectified is as to how the taxable turnover has to be computed. This undoubtedly is well within the jurisdiction of the power exercisable by the assessing officer under Section 55 of the TNGST Act. Thus, the respondent was justified in examining his power under Section 55 of the TNGST Act.
Computation of taxable turnover - Held that: - the respondent has rightly held that the turnover has to be fixed for the whole of the year and the year means the financial year as defined under Section 2(t) of the TNGST Act.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 884
Condonation of delay of 1541 days in representation - reasons given for delay is that the returned papers were mixed up - Held that: - the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, [2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT], has broadly culled out the principles of law to be considered in the matter of condonation and held that The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fide.
Following the guiding principles of Law, in the matter of condonation of delay, we find absolutely no sufficient cause, to condone the delay. That apart, it is also informed that the appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period, as provided for in the proviso to Section 38 of the then Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Reference made to decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., [2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT], where the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a question, as to whether, High Court has power to condone the delay, in presentation of a reference application, under unamended Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, beyond the prescribed period, by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it was held that time limit prescribed u/s 35H(1) is absolute and unextendable u/s 5 Limitation Act. Since court has to respect the legislative intent, limitation cannot be extended u/s 5 of Limitation Act
Delay cannot be condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 848
Validity of present FIR - only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties have already initiated proceedings under Sections 60(3) and Section 31(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 for the offences as alleged in the complaint petition, hence the present FIR could not have been lodged for the same offence in view of the well settled principle of law that a person cannot be convicted twice for the one and the same offence - Held that: - the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any provisions in the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005, which provides for criminal prosecution of the person who has furnished forged TIN number of the purchaser on the bills pertaining to the goods being transported through the check post.
The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India incorporates the principles of autrefois convicts or double jeopardy, which means that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once - In order to attract the protection guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, it is to be seen as to whether the ingredients of the offences alleged under two separate Acts are same or different.
In the present case, while the petitioner is being proceeded under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for concealing or failing to disclose full and correct particular of sale or purchase etc. as well as for evasion of tax, the present prosecution has been launched under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for committing forgery and cheating by furnishing invalid and false TIN number of the purchaser on the bill. Thus, the offence under the provisions of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act were, it seems, consequent to the offences under the Indian Penal Code, which ostensibly were committed first. Hence, in the present case, the same set of facts definitely constitute offence under two different law i.e. one under the Indian Penal Code and other under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, thus neither Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India has any relevance to the present case nor the present criminal prosecution can be said to be barred or a case of double jeopardy, much less liable to be quashed, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner herein.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 755
Revision of assessment - Section 27 of the TNVAT Act - Held that: - the petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner complies with the condition, then, along with the payment, the petitioner is entitled to submit his objections by treating the impugned proceedings as a SCN - the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law, after considering all issues pointed out by the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 690
Reassessment of tax - extended period of limitation - Section 29 (7) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 - Change of opinion - Held that: - there is no quarrel with the proposition that the reassessment proceedings may be initiated and reassessment order may be passed only after the assessing officer has recorded his 'reason to believe' that any turn over has escaped assessment. The objection of the State in the present case appears to be that the stage of applying the aforesaid principle has not arisen inasmuch as at present, neither the Additional Commissioner had granted the sanction to the petitioner's assessing authority to initiate assessment proceedings in the extended period of limitation nor the assessing authority has yet issued any notice to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The objection raised by the petitioner assumes significance inasmuch as the said issue was admittedly extensively and squarely dealt with by the assessing officer in the original assessment order dated 19.12.2013 - To allow the revenue to obtain sanction in absence of any 'reason to believe' (as to escapement to tax of any turn over), would be to allow the revenue authorities to find new way to harass the assessee.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 689
Re-opening of assessment - TNGST Act and CST Act - sale of tea - auction sale - exemption towards sales to exporters through auctioneers at Coonoor and Coimbatore auction centers - certificates as per the notification in CTRE/214(d)82-G.O.Ms No.876-CTRE dated 29.07.1982 - Form H - Held that: - A dealer who is effecting sales to merchant exporters for the purpose of export is required to produce a copy of the foreign order; the order should be placed on the local customer specifically to meet the earlier export obligation; and the very same goods should be exported. If the three obligations are fulfilled, the assessee is entitled for exemption on export of sales under Section 5(3) of the CST Act.
So far as the goods of tea is concerned, which is sold at the public auction for export, the dealers found it difficult to fulfill the three conditions and hence, the Tea Planters' Association of Tamil Nadu submitted their representations dated 31.10.1981 and 02.11.1981, praying for grant of exemption by the State of Tamil Nadu in respect of tea which is sold in public auction for export. The Government considered the same and by G.O.No.876 dated 29.07.1982, decided to exempt the sale of tea at auction centers of Coonoor and Coimbatore for export from liability to tax by notification issued under Section 17 of the TNGST Act and the exemption was subject to the condition that the tea purchased at the auction center is exported within six months from the date of auction and the proof of export is also produced.
Whether the first respondent was justified in proposing to re-open the assessment on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the declaration form as stipulated in G.O.No.876 dated 29.07.1982? - Held that: - From the certificate, it is seen that all the tea brokers have been registered under the provisions of the TNGST Act and have been assigned registration numbers. Thus, if the impugned assessment orders are allowed to be re-opened for the reasons stated by the first respondent in the impugned notice, it would virtually obliterate the benefit of exemption granted by the Government to promote the tea industry to ensure that the rates offered are competitive. The assessments were completed by the assessing officer stating that the petitioners have produced certificates from the tea brokers, who were registered dealers and tea has been sold in auction centers and tax sufference have been proved and exemption is allowed. Thus, the production of certificates as per the notification dated 29.07.1982, would be required only in cases where the tea brokers are not registered - One more error committed by the first respondent is to issue an identical notice in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 under the provisions of the CST Act, wherein Form H declaration has been produced, which has been specifically recorded by the assessing officer while completing the assessment vide order dated 01.03.2002.
The reason given in the impugned notices is not tenable and there is no justification on the part of the first respondent in re-opening the assessments - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 688
Rectification of assessment order - TNGST Act - whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the application for rectification on the ground that there is no mistake, which is apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1959? - Held that: - the legal position being that if the Supreme Court or the High Court pronounces the true position of law, any decision rendered by any other authority contrary to that is required to be regarded as an error which is apparent on the record - the assessing officer has given certain reasons in the assessment order to state that as to how the petitioner is not entitled for sale against Form XVII declaration and it is not a case where defective Form XVII declaration has been filed. Therefore, the presumption, which was drawn against the petitioner should be discharged by the petitioner by producing necessary documents and records before the concerned authority and not before this Court.
There is no error to be rectified - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 686
Rejection of claim of exemption on payment to sub-contractors - Held that: - this Court noted that on the first issue, namely payment to sub-contractors, the petitioner stated that out of 18 sub-contractors, they had enclosed records in respect of 14 sub-contractors, for which, exemption had been claimed under Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 - in the instant cases, in respect of the assessment year 2012-13, it appears that there are 11 sub-contractors and that the petitioner had enclosed records in respect of all the 11 sub-contractors while claiming exemption under Rule 8(5)(c) of the said Rules - matters are remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration along with the assessment for the year 2013-14, which has also been remanded - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 684
Levy of penalty u/s 27(3)(c) of TNVAT Act - the respondent alleged that there is sales suppression (stock difference) and computed the tax payable by the petitioner - Held that: - the respondent, being an independent Statutory Authority in the capacity of Assessing Officer of the petitioner, is required to examine the objections filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. However, the respondent did not do so, but completed the assessment and passed the impugned assessment order solely on the ground that the petitioner has already accepted the omission at the time of inspection. The manner, in which, the petitioner completed the assessment is a clear abdication of the statutory duty cast upon the respondent. Merely because there is a proposal from the Enforcement Wing Officials, that cannot be as a gospel truth to accept as it is and has to consider the objections of the assessee and then take a decision.
It was found that the Assessing Officer had acted on the basis of the direction of the higher authorities and accordingly, the assessment order was quashed - the impugned assessment is illegal, devoid of reasons and liable to be set aside - petition allowed - matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 671
Jurisdiction - power of AO to pass order after almost 11 years from the end of the year which is beyond the period of limitation - Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Rule 5(6) and 5(10) of Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967 - power to over look the provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967 - imposition of the additional tax @ 10% for non-submission of Form 'C' for CST sales - interpretation of statute.
Held that: - The dealer has to file Form 'C' / Form 'I' / Form 'F' for the concessional rate of tax claimed for the turnover reported and determined as above. Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover Rules 1957 mandates filing of the declaration in Form 'C'/'F'/'I' as the case may be, to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration forms relates. However inspite of several reminders, the dealer has not filed C, F, I Forms for the year 2005-2006 till date for some of the transactions - As per Section 2(k) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, "year" in relation to a dealer, means the year applicable in relation to him under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, and where there is no such year applicable, the financial year.
Interpretation of statute - Held that: - It is well settled that Tax Laws have to be given strict construction and interpretation. Reference can be made to few decisions. - There is no equity in tax, and the principle of strict or literal construction applies in interpreting tax statutes. Hence, on the plain language of the statute, if the assessee is entitled to two benefits, he has to be granted both these benefits - If there are two reasonable interpretation of taxing statutes, the one in favour of the assessee has to be accepted.
If initial assessment is permitted to be done, at any time, say in the case on hand, after a decade, after the submission of the returns, for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and if for any reasons, the whole or part of the turn over is assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable then, it would give leverage to the Taxing Authority, to do assessment, as in the case on hand, after 10 years and re-assess upto a further period of another five years, on the whole, 17 years.
When a statute mandates re-assessment to be done, within five years, it cannot be contended that assessment can be done at any time. When the assessee is mandated to submit returns, within a prescribed period and the Assessing Officer has to scrutinise the accounts and to conduct any enquiry, if he considers necessary and pass an assessment order, levy tax, if any and collect the same, after the close of the financial years, it cannot be contended that initial assessment can be made at any time.
Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 635
Penalty - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional authority was justified in levying penalty under section 34(7) of the GVAT Act? - Held that: - The revisional authority in the order passed under section 75 of the GVAT Act has imposed penalty under section 34(7) of the said Act. Sub-section (7) of section 34 of the GVAT Act provides for imposing penalty after affording the dealer an opportunity of being heard - Evidently, therefore, the statute contemplates issuance of notice indicating the default and the penalty proposed to be levied prior to passing any order under sub-section (7) of section 34 of the Act.
In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that no notice in Form 309 as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of rule 46 of the rules has been issued to the respondent dealer. Consequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was afforded any opportunity of being heard as contemplated under sub-section (7) of section 34 of the GVAT Act.
Levy of penalty was in breach of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 34 of the GVAT Act - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner-Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 629
Maintainability of appeal- whether against the impugned order, an appeal is maintainable under Section 27 of the MVAT Act, 2002? - Held that: - In the present case, the order impugned has been passed on the application for stay made by the petitioner in the pending appeals. While deciding such application, no issue could be finally decided or concluded and only a prima facie consideration of the controversy involved in the appeal is required to be made with a view to ascertain whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case - Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act of 2002, on the face of it gives an impression that an appeal will lie to this Court from every order passed by the Tribunal on a substantial question of law.
The Division Bench considered the view taken by the Apex Court and Delhi High Court in certain other cases and came to the conclusion that against a procedural order or an interlocutory order which does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties, an appeal will not be maintainable under sub-section( 1) of Section 20 as the word “order” will not include an interlocutory or a procedural order which does not decide the rights between the parties.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 626
Rate of tax - cake gel - taxable at 4% or 12%? - Held that: - The general rule pertaining to classification of a product is to see as to whether the product will fall under any of the specific entry, which specifically prescribe a product and when the product does not fall under any of the specific entry, the Authority would be justified in classifying the product under the residual or general entry - Though the petitioner had approached the first respondent for clarification, the Authority should specifically state as to why the petitioner's product should be classified under Entry 49 in Part D of first schedule to the Act, when according to the petitioner, the product is a vegetable oil consisting of admixture of other substances and through a process that is being used for human consumption - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 623
Whether after constituting a Bench of three members in terms of Sub-Section (6) of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 the learned President of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal could have passed an order that reference to a Bench of three members was unwarranted and whether the learned President could have alone disposed of the Appeal on merits?
Held that: - In the present case, the roznama shows that though after hearing the case fully, judgment was reserved by a Bench of three members, on 5th December, 2016, the Appeal was placed only before the learned President - In his order recorded in the roznama, the learned President has stated that both the parties have been informed that the Appeal cannot be referred to a Bench consisting of three members. After the Bench of three members had fully heard the Appeal, only the said Bench could have come to the conclusion that the reference made to the said Bench of three members was unwarranted. Even in the report submitted by the learned President, he has not stated that even the other two members constituting the Bench of three members passed a similar order. The roznama shows that on 5th December, 2016, the Appeal was placed only before the learned President and the Roznama order was signed only by the learned President. Thus, the order that the reference was unwarranted has been passed only by one of the three members forming a part of the Bench of three members.
The order dated 5th December, 2016 will have to be held as completely illegal and consequently the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2016 delivered by the learned President will have to be set aside - Appeal is restored to the file of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal.
-
2017 (12) TMI 621
Concessional rate of duty - Assessing Officer was of the view that there was no manufacturing activity involved in conversion of wet blue hides into finished leather and hence, the dealers were not eligible to purchase chemical against Form XVII at concessional rate - Held that: - Issue in the present case is covered by a decision of this Court in Golden Leathers v. Secretary, TNSTAT, [2010 (4) TMI 535 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, a Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically held that the process of transformation of blue leather into finished leather amounts to manufacturing activity.
In the case on hand, wet blue (semi-finished) leather has been converted into finished leather. Golden Leathers' case squarely applies to the case on hand - the process of conversion of wet blue (semi-finished) leather into finished leather, amounts to an manufacturing activity.
Tax revision dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 619
Benefit of Composition Tax - dealer selling Liquor - denial on the ground that as per Rule 135(4) of the KVAT Rules, 2005, a Dealer selling liquor is not entitled to have the benefit of composition of tax under Section 15 of the Act - Held that: - The petitioner-assessee is admittedly selling liquor in one of its Units or Divisions namely, 3-Star Hotel run by it. The petitioner also holds a common registration number with the Respondent-Department. Merely because the petitioner - assessee can bifurcate the turnover relating to different commodities and the Respondent-Assessing Authority can also verify the same, it does not entitle the petitioner-assessee to claim blanket benefit of composition under Section 15 of the Act.
If the State does not intend to give the benefit of composition to the Dealer selling liquor, it can certainly do so and no valid challenge can be made to the same - The petitioner Dealer cannot compel the Respondent-Department to grant such composition benefit, while maintaining the common registration and also simultaneously carry on the business of the goods or commodities like liquor which is specifically prohibited under Rule 135(4) of the Rules for availing such benefit.
Petition dismissed - decided against Petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 537
Defective application - application for waiver of penalty - Exemption from payment of tax - Held that: - In somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon ble Division Bench in the case of Chetak Timber Products (P) Ltd., vs. Joint Commissioner and another [2014 (9) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], held that when there is a defective application, the Designated Authority should return the application for rectification.
The reason assigned by the first respondent to state that the petitioner s application does not comply with the conditions of the Samadhan Act, is incorrect and for all practical purposes, the payment effected by the petitioner by paying 10% of the penalty and 25% of the interest as provided for under Section 7(c) of the Samadhan Act, should date back to 13.11.2006 - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, who shall take on file the application for settlement - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 312
Validity of reassessment proceeding - Section 29 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2007 - interpretation of statute 'reason to believe' - escapement from tax - deemed sale of construction material - Held that: - the jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner could arise under Section 29 only if after the petitioner's assessing authority records a valid 'reason to believe' as is the requirement of the Act itself - it cannot be gain said that at present merely a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and that it would be open to the petitioner to establish that no taxable event had occurred during the assessment year 2008-09 (U.P.). That plea may be permitted to be raised and may be sustained if the proceedings in which or with reference to which such plea is raised are those of regular assessment and not of reassessment. In the course of regular assessment proceedings it is open to assessing authority to raise all his doubts, suspicion and seek clarification on the same from the assessee.
There is not even any information with the assessing authority of the petitioner as to any turnover having escaped assessment. The petitioner's assessing authority in fact desires to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry to explore the possibility of escapement of turnover, though at present he does not appear to have with him any material that may lead to formation of a 'reason to believe' as to escapement of any part of the petitioner's turnover - It being a jurisdictional issue that goes to the very root of the matter, the revenue cannot plead that the assessee may be first required to show cause without the revenue first satisfying this Court that it had jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner. Then, the jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner cannot be claimed merely because in subsequent assessment years the petitioner has been subjected to tax and the assessing officer wants to explore a possibility if similar liability may arise in the present year as well. There must exist relevant material with the assessing authority to claim occurrence of the taxable event and further that such event occurred during the Assessment Year in question and that it escaped assessment.
The fact situation of the present case admits of no doubt that the taxable event of deemed transfer of construction material never occurred during the A.Y. 2008-09. Though the petitioner admitted to have started making the constructions in that assessment year but the petitioner denied existence of any contract to either book or sell any flat/apartment or unit etc. during the assessment year in question. Being a negative fact, the petitioner could not have lead any evidence in support thereof. In any case being reassessment proceedings, the burden was on the revenue to disclose material to establish otherwise. The assessing authority does not have any material to prove or allege otherwise. Therefore, the revenue cannot assert that any taxable event occurred. Consequently, in absence of taxable event having occurred, the revenue could not have also alleged that any turnover ever escaped assessment at the hands of the petitioner in that year.
The reassessment issue notice in the present case dated 2.3.2017 and the sanction order dated 25.2.2017 are wholly without jurisdiction and consequently deserve to be quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|
