Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice initiating reassessment proceedings was invalid because it was issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act while the escaped turnover was proposed to be assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act.
Analysis: The validity of a notice for escaped turnover depends on whether the assessing authority had reason to believe that part of the turnover had escaped assessment and whether the notice sufficiently informed the assessee of the proposed action. A notice is not invalid merely because the underlying belief may later prove erroneous, so long as there was material on which the belief could reasonably be formed. The notice here stated that part of the turnover for the relevant year had escaped assessment, and the surrounding circumstances made it clear that the proposed action related to Central sales tax liability. The court therefore treated the challenge to the notice as separate from the merits of liability under sections 8(2A) and 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which were left to the assessment proceeding.
Conclusion: The notice was held valid and the challenge to it failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, with the reassessment notice sustained and the merits of the tax liability left to be determined in the pending assessment proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice is valid if the assessing authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment and the notice sufficiently conveys the proposed action, even if the assessee disputes the underlying tax liability.