Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Proceedings and a determination under the tax recovery provision...
Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defect.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Proceedings and a determination under the tax recovery provision were initiated and concluded against a sole proprietor who had died before the show cause notice; the court found the proceedings defective because no notice was directed to the legal representative after death, rendering initiation and the resulting order invalid. The appellate authority rejected the subsequent appeal on limitation without addressing this jurisdictional defect; because the procedural flaw went undecided by the appellate body, the impugned order could not be sustained and the writ challenging the determination was disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
Proceedings and a determination under the tax recovery provision were initiated and concluded against a sole proprietor who had died before the show cause notice; the court found the proceedings defective because no notice was directed to the legal representative after death, rendering initiation and the resulting order invalid. The appellate authority rejected the subsequent appeal on limitation without addressing this jurisdictional defect; because the procedural flaw went undecided by the appellate body, the impugned order could not be sustained and the writ challenging the determination was disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.