TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for want of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing, and (ii) whether the assessment order and demand notice were barred by limitation on the basis that the recorded dates were not reliable and the order appeared to be backdated.
Issue (i): whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for want of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: The record showed that no order was passed on the adjourned date and there was nothing to show that the subsequent hearing date had been communicated to the dealer. In these circumstances, the ex parte assessment could not be sustained because the dealer had not been given a real opportunity of being heard in the assessment proceeding.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): whether the assessment order and demand notice were barred by limitation on the basis that the recorded dates were not reliable and the order appeared to be backdated.
Analysis: The Tribunal found unexplained delay in despatch and service of the demand notice, irregularities in the issue register, and circumstances showing that the recorded date of the order and notice could not be accepted at face value. Applying the presumption that an order may not have been made on the date it purports to bear when the surrounding record is unreliable and no satisfactory explanation is offered, the Tribunal held that the assessment could not be treated as having been made within the limitation period under the governing VAT law.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The assessment and consequential demand were unsustainable for breach of hearing requirements and for having been made beyond the permissible period.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not show proper notice of hearing and the surrounding circumstances create an unrebutted presumption that the assessment order was not made on the date it purports to bear, the order is liable to be invalidated for violation of natural justice and limitation.
TaxTMI 
