9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal against the aforesaid order, annexure 12. Dr. Debi Pal appearing for the petitioner submitted that a concluded assessment order passed in 2001 under the CST has been reopened and reassessment order has been passed without serving a valid notice under section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act and, as such, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. Jhunjhunwala, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the impugned orders were passed after serving notice on the petitioner pursuant to and for giving effect to the order of remand passed by the appellate authority on December 23, 2004 (annexure 7). In view of the submissions made by Dr. Pal, the main question involved in this writ petition is whether the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated January 3, 2006 and February 10, 2006 (annexure 8 series). The petitioner did not appear pursuant to the said notices. Accordingly, two amended assessment orders were passed on March 16, 2006 under the BST and the CST (annexures 9 and 12, respectively). Pursuant to the said orders, a notice showing excess payment of Rs. 67,46,653 under the BST and a notice demanding Rs. 2,12,55,752 under the CST (annexures 10 and 11) were served. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order passed under the CST which was dismissed by order dated July 19, 2006 (annexure 14). Dr. Pal referred to the aforesaid notice dated January 3, 2006, and pointed out that the BST registration number was mentioned in the notice and clause "KHA" wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner cannot challenge the impugned orders on the ground that no notice was served under the CST for reopening/reassessment. The petitioner accepts the receipt of the said notices (annexure 8 series). The orders of reassessment for the same financial year under the BST and the CST cannot be seen in isolation. Thus, it has to be held that the impugned orders are not without jurisdiction for want of service of valid notice under section 19 of the Sales Tax Act for reopening/reassessment of the assessment order passed under the CST. The said judgments relied by Dr. Pal are of no help to him in view of the distinguishing facts noted above. On the question of alternative remedy, Dr. Pal submitted that the Tribunal is not functioning and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
