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 letter dated 11 September 1979 was a fresh notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act or only a step taken during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 23 March 1979, and whether the reassessment was therefore barred by limitation.
Analysis: The original notice under section 21 was admittedly served within limitation. On examination of the order sheet, it was found that the proceedings had not terminated on 30 August 1979, as only the hearing had taken place on that date and no final order had been passed. The later communication dated 11 September 1979 merely required the assessee to appear and furnish further particulars regarding the sale of makhana. Since the reassessment proceedings initiated on 23 March 1979 were still alive and pending, the later letter could not be treated as a fresh notice starting a new proceeding. The objection based on limitation therefore failed.
Conclusion: The notice dated 11 September 1979 was not a fresh notice but a step taken in the continuing proceedings under section 21, and the reassessment was not barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the assessee obtained no relief on the limitation challenge to the reassessment proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent communication requiring further particulars during pending reassessment proceedings does not amount to a fresh notice where the original section 21 proceedings have not been concluded.