9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond respondent. In this notice it was stated that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide order No. R1-34410/10/CT dated November 10, 2010 has accorded sanction to reopen the above assessment and therefore it was proposed to reopen the same. Accordingly the assessment was finalized, The assessment order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (C). No. 11279 of 2011 (P. H. Mohammed Kunju and Brothers v. Assistant Commissioner). In that writ petition his only complaint was that the assessment was completed without affording him adequate opportunity to file his objections or giving him an opportunity of hearing. This court accepted the contentions of the petitioner and the writ petition was disposed of by exhibit P3 judgment. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in Writ Petition (C). No. 20625 of 2010 (C) (Calcutta Tarpaulin Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer). I have considered the submission made and also heard the Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. First of all, it was on the basis of exhibit P5, now challenged by the petitioner that exhibit P2 notice to reopen the assessment was issued to the petitioner. In that notice, exhibit P5 order was specifically referred to. When assessment was reopened on the basis of exhibit P2, although petitioner challenged the order of assessment on the ground that it was when the assessment was completed, no notice was issued and an opportunity of hearing was not granted, no challenge whatsoever was raised against exhibit P5 order of the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were received justifying reopening as contemplated under section 17D(2)(d) of the KGST Act. In such situation the petitioner cannot complain that any prejudice has been caused to him also. However, from exhibit P5,1 notice that sanction has been accorded to the assessing authority, second respondent to complete the assessment. Admittedly this is a case where assessment was completed in terms of section 17D. Therefore, re-opening also should be conducted in the manner as in section 17D. To that extent I find substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge against exhibit P5 is rejected. However, I direct that re-opening of the assessment consequent thereto shall be completed in the manner as provided under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
