Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute e...
The HC held the issue not res integra and ruled that once the respondent-revenue issued a final assessment order followed immediately by a demand notice, it was impermissible to thereafter recharacterize that order as a draft by issuing a corrigendum; such conduct amounted to an improper circumvention of the finality of assessment. The court quashed the impugned assessment order, the accompanying demand notice and the subsequent corrigendum, restoring the petitioner's procedural rights and precluding the respondent-revenue from sustaining any second or substitute assessment predicated on the reclassification. The remedies granted were declaratory and restitutive, with the impugned instruments set aside.
The HC held the issue not res integra and ruled that once the respondent-revenue issued a final assessment order followed immediately by a demand notice, it was impermissible to thereafter recharacterize that order as a draft by issuing a corrigendum; such conduct amounted to an improper circumvention of the finality of assessment. The court quashed the impugned assessment order, the accompanying demand notice and the subsequent corrigendum, restoring the petitioner's procedural rights and precluding the respondent-revenue from sustaining any second or substitute assessment predicated on the reclassification. The remedies granted were declaratory and restitutive, with the impugned instruments set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
