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 issued for reassessment under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 could be quashed at the threshold, and whether the taxing authority should first decide the jurisdictional objection before proceeding to reassessment and penalty.
Analysis: Section 19(1) permits reassessment only when the authority is prima facie satisfied, on definite material, that taxable sale or purchase has escaped assessment and that the omission is attributable to the dealer. The notice is only the initiating step and does not by itself constitute the foundation of jurisdiction. The dealer is entitled to contest the existence of the jurisdictional facts, and the authority must first examine whether the basic conditions for reopening exist, before moving to reassessment. In the circumstances of the case, the court found it to preserve both sides' interests by directing the petitioner to file a reply and by requiring the authority to determine jurisdiction as a preliminary question by a reasoned order.
Conclusion: The notice was not quashed, but the petitioner was given the opportunity to object to jurisdiction, and the taxing authority was directed to decide that issue first before taking any further reassessment action.