Extended limitation under Section 74 was treated as justified where the petitioner failed to fully respond to the written requisition, the DRC-01A intimation and the DRC-01 notices, which was treated as suppression of facts. The text further notes that, when the department proceeds on the petitioner's own records and detects non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC, Section 74 can be sustained. For two assessment years, the proceedings were said to be within limitation in any event, and even a mistaken Section 74 invocation could be recast under Section 73 through Section 75(2) if a proper reply is filed. Ex parte orders were remitted de novo on conditional compliance.
Extended limitation under Section 74 was treated as justified where the petitioner failed to fully respond to the written requisition, the DRC-01A intimation and the DRC-01 notices, which was treated as suppression of facts. The text further notes that, when the department proceeds on the petitioner's own records and detects non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC, Section 74 can be sustained. For two assessment years, the proceedings were said to be within limitation in any event, and even a mistaken Section 74 invocation could be recast under Section 73 through Section 75(2) if a proper reply is filed. Ex parte orders were remitted de novo on conditional compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
