TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid notices under 1954 Act quashed for incorrect address, lack of hearing, multiple claims combined. Liberty denied, no costs.</h1> <h3>JK. Industries Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division and another</h3> JK. Industries Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division and another - [2001] 124 STC 216 (WBTT) Issues:1. Validity of notices issued under section 9(3) of the 1954 Act for deemed assessments.2. Contention regarding the change of address and its impact on the proceedings.3. Reopening of deemed assessments without providing an opportunity of being heard.4. Clubbing of multiple causes of action in a single application.5. Payment of court fees for multiple causes of action.6. Request for liberty to issue fresh notices.Issue 1: Validity of notices under section 9(3) of the 1954 Act:The applicant-company challenges the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division, under section 9(3) of the 1954 Act, alleging that the notices presuppose completion of a proceeding under section 9A(2) without providing an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal finds that the notices lack merit as the company had submitted returns for the relevant periods, rendering the basis of the notices invalid.Issue 2: Impact of change of address on proceedings:The respondents admit sending show cause notices to the company's old address due to inadvertence, leading to a lack of communication with the company. The Tribunal rules that such service of notice at the wrong address amounts to non-service, depriving the company of the opportunity to be heard. The company's obligation under rule 22A regarding address change does not relieve the prescribed authority from its obligation under rule 22AA.Issue 3: Reopening of deemed assessments without hearing:The Tribunal emphasizes that the orders reopening the deemed assessments were passed without providing the company an opportunity to be heard, rendering both the orders and the impugned notices invalid and liable to be quashed.Issue 4: Clubbing of multiple causes of action:The Tribunal notes that the application combines four independent causes of action, which should have been heard separately as per the rules. However, due to inadvertence, the application was admitted, and the Tribunal decides not to dismiss it at that stage, subject to payment of court fees for the additional causes of action.Issue 5: Payment of court fees for multiple causes of action:The Tribunal directs the company to pay the deficit court fees for the additional causes of action within a specified time frame. Failure to pay the court fees would result in the dismissal of the application concerning those causes of action.Issue 6: Request for liberty to issue fresh notices:The Tribunal rejects the request for liberty to issue fresh notices, citing the authority's neglect in verifying the company's latest address and the lack of diligence in serving notices. The Tribunal declines to extend the period of limitation without extraordinary circumstances justifying such an extension.In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the application, provided the deficit court fees are paid within the specified time frame, quashing the impugned notices. Failure to pay the court fees would result in the dismissal of the application. No costs are awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
