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, after a writ court quashes an ex parte assessment made under section 12 and remits the matter for fresh consideration, the further proceedings are to be treated as proceedings under section 16 so as to attract the limitation applicable to escaped assessments.
Analysis: The order of remand made in writ jurisdiction was not equated with a statutory direction by an authority acting under the sales tax statute. The original assessment proceedings had been lawfully initiated under section 12 and, after remand, they continued as part of the same assessment process. Since the assessment had not been completed in the manner known to law, the proceedings remained pending and there was no transformation of the matter into proceedings for escaped assessment under section 16. On that footing, the limitation governing section 16 had no application.
Conclusion: The contention that the remitted proceedings had become section 16 proceedings was rejected and the writ of prohibition was not warranted.
Final Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were held to be a continuation of the original assessments under section 12, and the challenge to the reassessment notices failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A remand made in writ jurisdiction, where the original assessment proceedings remain pending and incomplete, does not convert those proceedings into escaped-assessment proceedings under section 16 of the sales tax law.