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 assessment orders were liable to be set aside for failure to comply with the appellate authority's remand directions and for not verifying the invoices relating to the sale price and Maximum Retail Price.
Analysis: The assessment had earlier been remanded with a specific direction to verify all invoices and ascertain whether the dealer had charged Maximum Retail Price as the sale price. The impugned assessments did not show such verification in the manner required by the appellate authority. Since the direction was specific and went to the basis of the turnover determination, the reassessment made without adhering to that mandate could not be sustained. The challenge based on the subsequent excise notification also reinforced the petitioners' grievance, but the primary reason for interference was the non-compliance with the remand order.
Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were liable to be interfered with and the matters were required to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the appellate directions.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the assessments were set aside, and the matters were sent back for fresh adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made without carrying out a specific remand direction issued by the appellate authority, particularly where invoice verification is essential to determine taxable turnover, cannot be sustained and must be set aside for fresh consideration.