9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of recovery proceedings launched by the sales tax authorities to recover from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 57,910.11 plus penal interest plus process fee charges. The writ petition gives a split up of the amount sought to be recovered for the assessment years as follows: For the assessment year 1967-68 ... Rs. 35,950.01 " " " " 1968-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71.65 in regard to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act because of the enhancement made by the revisional order dated 29th September, 1973. The same situation obtains with regard to the liability of Rs. 11,888.45 which also accrued as a result of the enhancement made by the revisional order of the same date. In each of these cases the revisional order restored the assessment made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount demanded. Since no such notice was served upon the assessee it could not be said that he was in default. Unless such a notice of demand was served and the prescribed period mentioned in it has elapsed the assessing authorities have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for recovery of the enhanced amount. The proceeding for recovery of penal interest appears to be premature. Under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already seen, the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of service of fresh notice as contemplated by subsection (9) of section 8 had not even begun to run because no such notice had been served upon the assessee. It could not therefore be said that the assessee failed to pay the tax assessed on him within the time allowed by the statute. The notice to impose penalty was equally premature. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
