TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 revisional order could stand when service of notice for hearing was not shown to have been effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 86(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995; (ii) whether the assessee should be permitted to produce C and E1 forms before the revisional authority on remand.
Issue (i): whether the revisional order could stand when service of notice for hearing was not shown to have been effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 86(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995.
Analysis: The prescribed mode of service required delivery or postal service, and only upon recorded satisfaction that such service was not possible or was being evaded could service by affixture be adopted. The record did not disclose a proper service report by affixture or any recorded satisfaction by the revisional authority before proceeding ex parte.
Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside for want of proper service and compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Issue (ii): whether the assessee should be permitted to produce C and E1 forms before the revisional authority on remand.
Analysis: The court accepted the settled position that declaration forms may be furnished at the appellate or revisional stage where the matter is reconsidered in accordance with law, and the revisional authority may take cognizance of such forms while deciding the revision afresh.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to file the C and E1 forms before the revisional authority, which was directed to consider them according to law.
Final Conclusion: The common revisional orders were set aside and the revisions were sent back for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing and of producing the relevant declaration forms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
