TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the delayed rejection of an application for payment of tax on compounded basis could justify assessment on regular basis and reassessment under the KVAT regime after the assessee had commenced payment under the compounded scheme and the department had accepted such payments.
Analysis: The application for compounding was required to be considered and intimated within the relevant time so that the assessee could discharge tax liability under the appropriate statutory scheme. Where no rejection was communicated before the expiry of the first quarter of the assessment year and the assessee continued to pay tax on compounded basis, the department could not later deny that option and proceed under the regular provisions. Acceptance of tax paid without demur, followed by a belated attempt to reopen the matter, amounted only to a change of opinion and could not sustain action under Section 25(1). The delay prejudiced the assessee's ability to shift to regular assessment in time and was therefore legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The assessment orders based on the belated rejection and reassessment were unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the impugned reassessment orders were set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has opted for compounding and the department fails to reject that option within the statutory time while accepting tax paid under that scheme, a subsequent reassessment on regular basis cannot be founded on a delayed change of opinion.
TaxTMI 
