TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIM J. Challenge in this writ petition is against exhibit P7 order of assessment finalised in accordance with rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax Rules (CST Rules). In spite of the effective remedy of statutory appeal provided, the petitioner is challenging the impugned assessment, on the premise that it was finalised in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also in violation of prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not take active participation in the proceedings. But the assessment was finalised on the very same day, i.e., on January 3, 2011 itself, holding that the request could not be considered because the petitioner had failed to produce C forms in support of the claim, till that date. It is mentioned in exhibit P7 that the assessment being related to the year 2006-07, it will get time-barred on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the proposal. It is evident that the proposal notice in question was received by the petitioner on December 27, 2010. Admittedly, the request for adjournment was submitted on January 3, 2011, i.e., on the seventh day after receipt of the notice. But it is seen that the assessment was finalised on the very same day itself, despite the fact that the assessment will get time-barred only by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the abovementioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and exhibit P7 order of assessment is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to complete the assessment afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner will file objection against the proposal notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
