Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Service of notice crucial for jurisdiction under Rule 12</h1> <h3>Muralidhar Gopikishan (P) Ltd. and Another Versus State of Orissa and Others</h3> Muralidhar Gopikishan (P) Ltd. and Another Versus State of Orissa and Others - [1999] 116 STC 308 (Ori) Issues Involved:1. Whether service of notice on the dealer is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957.2. Whether the order of assessment becomes invalid or without jurisdiction if the dealer appears before the assessing officer and participates in the proceedings without service of notice.3. Whether there was any valid service of notice on the dealer in the present case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Service of Notice as Condition Precedent for JurisdictionThe court examined Rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, which mandates that if the Commissioner is not satisfied with the returns furnished by a dealer, he must 'serve on such dealer a notice' requiring attendance or production of evidence. The language of Rule 12(2)(a) is peremptory, indicating that service of notice on the dealer is a condition precedent for the Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction. The court referenced the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 71, which interpreted similar language to mean that the entire process of sending and serving the notice is necessary. Consequently, the court held that service of notice on the dealer is essential for the Commissioner to have jurisdiction under Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957.Issue 2: Effect of Dealer's Participation Without Service of NoticeThe court concluded that non-service of notice takes away the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, and the dealer's appearance or participation in the proceedings does not confer jurisdiction. The principle of waiver or estoppel does not apply in such cases. The court cited the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Singh v. Narain Tewari AIR 1931 All. 490, which held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by estoppel. Similarly, in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash's case, it was held that improper service of notice invalidates the initiation of proceedings, regardless of the assessee's participation. The court distinguished this case from State of Orissa v. Sri Gurumurty Patra [1973] 31 STC 160, noting that the language of Rule 12(2) is imperative, unlike Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, which requires reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the court held that participation of the dealer without proper service of notice does not validate the proceedings or confer jurisdiction on the assessing officer.Issue 3: Validity of Service of Notice on the DealerThe court examined whether there was valid service of notice on the dealer in the present case. Under Rule 84 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, applicable to proceedings under the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, notice must be served on the manager or principal officer of the company. The petitioners asserted that no notice was served on the dealer, but the records indicated otherwise. The records showed that a notice in the prescribed form IV was issued to the dealer, and the dealer acknowledged receipt of the notice in an application dated November 6, 1980, requesting time to produce accounts. Further applications for extension of time were made, and the dealer appeared before the assessing officer with relevant books of accounts. Based on these records, the court concluded that there was valid service of notice on the dealer, and thus, the order passed by the assessing officer was valid.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that despite the legal requirement for service of notice and the implications of non-service, the records established that there was valid service of notice on the dealer. Therefore, the proceedings were not without jurisdiction, and the assessments were upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found