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>Court dismisses petition challenging recovery action on assessment orders, clarifies legal liability of representatives</h1> <h3>V. Subbulakshmi Versus The Commercial Tax Officer</h3> V. Subbulakshmi Versus The Commercial Tax Officer - TMI Issues: Challenge to assessment orders and recovery actionAssessment Orders:The judgment pertains to a challenge against assessment orders for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 issued to the petitioner's deceased husband, who was the proprietor of a registered dealer. Notices were served to the petitioner's daughter and son-in-law, followed by the assessment orders being served to the petitioner herself. The petitioner contested the enforcement of these orders in a writ petition.Analysis:The court examined the service of the assessment order and found it was properly served on the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the original assessment order dated 30.09.2003 in the appropriate legal manner. As a result, the court held that any challenge to the subsequent recovery action, specifically the auction notice dated 27.07.2011, was not maintainable. The court emphasized that without setting aside or staying the original assessment order, challenging the recovery action was not permissible. The court clarified that the petitioner's liability was limited to the extent of inheritance, and there could be no personal liability for legal representatives. Only the assets of the original assessee could be subject to recovery proceedings.Recovery Action:The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the recovery action, emphasizing that without challenging the original assessment order, contesting the recovery action was not tenable. The court ruled that the auction notice was not challengeable without addressing the primary order first. The judgment highlighted that personal liability does not extend to legal representatives, and only the assets of the deceased assessee could be pursued for recovery.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the recovery action, emphasizing the importance of challenging the original assessment order before contesting subsequent recovery proceedings. The judgment clarified the limited liability of legal representatives and the scope of recovery actions against the assets of the deceased assessee. The court's decision underscored the necessity of following legal procedures in challenging tax assessments and recovery actions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
