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 demand raised under the Collector's notice dated 19-6-1986 for the period September 1985 to March 1986 was maintainable when the notice invoked Rule 9(2) and the proviso to Section 11A; (ii) whether the demands under the four earlier notices could be enforced only for six months preceding each notice; and (iii) whether the procedure followed in transferring and adjudicating the proceedings before the Collector suffered from any irregularity.
Issue (i): whether the demand raised under the Collector's notice dated 19-6-1986 for the period September 1985 to March 1986 was maintainable when the notice invoked Rule 9(2) and the proviso to Section 11A.
Analysis: The demand under the Collector's notice rested on Rule 9(2), which could operate only where there was infraction of Rule 9(1). The order records that no such infraction had been found. The reference to the proviso to Section 11A was only to support the extended period, but the notice itself proceeded on the footing of alleged breach of Rule 9(1). In those circumstances, the demand for the stated period could not be sustained under that notice.
Conclusion: The demand under the notice dated 19-6-1986 for the period September 1985 to March 1986 was not maintainable and was liable to be set aside.
Issue (ii): whether the demands under the four earlier notices could be enforced only for six months preceding each notice.
Analysis: The four earlier notices had been issued under Section 11A, and the demand could be sustained only to the extent permitted by the ordinary limitation period. The order clarifies that, even though the Collector's notice could not support the later period, the earlier notices remained enforceable for the period of six months preceding each respective notice.
Conclusion: The demands under the four earlier notices were enforceable only for six months prior to the dates of each notice and not for any longer period.
Issue (iii): whether the procedure followed in transferring and adjudicating the proceedings before the Collector suffered from any irregularity.
Analysis: The earlier notices had been issued before the statutory change requiring the Collector to adjudicate matters where the longer limitation period was proposed to be invoked. The proceedings could validly be transferred and continued from the stage reached on commencement of the amending Act. No procedural irregularity was found in the Collector's adjudication of the notices together.
Conclusion: No irregularity was found in the procedure followed by the Collector.
Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the extent of correcting the operative part of the earlier order so as to exclude the demand covered by the Collector's notice for September 1985 to March 1986, while preserving the enforceability of the earlier notices within the six-month limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand under Rule 9(2) can be sustained only where there is an infraction of Rule 9(1), and a notice proceeding on that basis cannot support a demand for a period not legally covered by the invoked provision; however, earlier Section 11A notices remain enforceable to the extent permitted by the applicable limitation period.
TaxTMI 
