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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the permission for re-assessment and the notice issued under the trade tax law were vitiated by an alleged backdating of the dispatch entry and whether the reassessment proceedings could be quashed on that basis.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the reassessment initiation on the footing that the permission order and notice had been antedated to defeat limitation. On examination of the order sheet and the receipt and dispatch registers, the Court found that the Additional Commissioner had granted permission on 15.3.2013 after notice and participation by the petitioner, that the order was dispatched on the same date and received by the assessing authority on 18.3.2013, and that the notice under Section 21(2) was actually dispatched on 18.3.2013 fixing a hearing for 25.3.2013. The wrong date entered in the dispatch register was explained as a clerical mistake, and disciplinary action had been initiated against the dispatch clerk. The Court also held that dispatch of notice is only a ministerial act and does not invalidate the substantive order passed by the competent authority in proceedings in which the petitioner participated.
Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment proceedings failed and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A clerical error in the dispatch register or notice date does not invalidate a duly passed reassessment permission or notice where the competent authority's order was made within time and the assessee participated in the proceedings.