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 stay orders issued under the sales tax law were valid and whether the impugned assessment notices for the relevant years were barred by limitation.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required assessment orders to be made within the prescribed limitation period, unless proceedings were validly stayed under the proviso to section 42. Rule 37-A required the Commissioner to record in writing the reasons and circumstances necessitating stay, and the power could be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances and for supervening reasons not attributable to the assessing authority's default. The requirement of a prior show cause notice was part of the rule of natural justice. On the record, the stay orders contained no real reasons, rested on a bare assumption of consent, and were passed without issuing the required notice. Mere pendency of assessment proceedings was not a sufficient ground for stay.
Conclusion: The stay orders were invalid and did not extend limitation. The assessment notices for the periods that had become time-barred were unsustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in challenging the unlawful stay orders and the consequential time-barred assessment notices, and the proceedings were quashed for the affected years.
Ratio Decidendi: A stay of assessment proceedings under the sales tax rules can be made only for recorded reasons, in extraordinary circumstances, and after complying with the requirement of notice and natural justice; a bare pendency of proceedings or an assumed consent is insufficient to extend limitation.