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>Tribunal emphasizes fairness in tax law notices, quashes reopening orders</h1> <h3>Mahinder Sarup Bansal Versus Dy. CCT., Chowringhee Circle and others</h3> Mahinder Sarup Bansal Versus Dy. CCT., Chowringhee Circle and others - [2001] 123 STC 69 (WB) Issues:Challenge to notice under section 11-E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for deemed assessment reopening for incorrect turnover/particulars of sales disclosure; Validity of notice despite lack of specific details; Dispute over assessment under section 11(1) and subsequent notice under section 11-E(2); Interpretation of satisfaction requirement for issuing notice under section 11-E(2); Discrepancy between word 'evading' and 'reduction' in the notice; Requirement for respondent to provide additional particulars for applicant to show cause; Quashing of orders for reopening deemed assessments due to non-appearance of applicant.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Notice under Section 11-E(2): The applicant challenged the notice under section 11-E(2) for reopening deemed assessments due to incorrect turnover/particulars of sales without specific details disclosed, alleging violation of natural justice principles.2. Validity of Notice and Assessment Dispute: The validity of the notice was questioned in RN-210 due to an alleged assessment under section 11(1) and subsequent notice under section 11-E(2), with the applicant contending that the authorities could not resort to section 11-E(2) post-assessment.3. Interpretation of Satisfaction Requirement: The satisfaction requirement for issuing notices under section 11-E(2) was analyzed, emphasizing that prima facie satisfaction suffices at the preliminary stage, and specific details in the notice were deemed unnecessary initially.4. Discrepancy in Notice Terminology: A discrepancy between the use of 'evading' and 'reduction' in the notice was noted, with the Tribunal ruling that such discrepancy did not invalidate the notices, although proper terminology was recommended for future cases.5. Requirement for Additional Particulars: The applicant's request for further particulars in the notice to enable a proper showing of cause was upheld, directing the respondent to provide necessary information for the applicant's defense.6. Quashing of Orders for Non-Appearance: Orders for reopening deemed assessments were quashed due to the applicant's non-appearance, with a directive to dispose of proceedings afresh within a specified timeframe if the applicant fails to appear and seek additional information.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the main applications without costs, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need for clarity in notices issued under tax laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
