https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150111 A defective assessment notice issued before valid appointment of the officer did not by itself void the best judgment assessment, because section 11(1) required only a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the dealer was in fact heard, produced books and raised objections before the competent authority; the notice defect was therefore treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. Section 11(1) was also held not to violate article 14, because the penalty mechanism and prosecution provision operated in different fields, served different purposes, and were supported by safeguards such as prior sanction and a bar on double action on the same facts. The constitutional challenge failed and the assessment and penalty were sustained. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2013 10:37:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150111 A defective assessment notice issued before valid appointment of the officer did not by itself void the best judgment assessment, because section 11(1) required only a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the dealer was in fact heard, produced books and raised objections before the competent authority; the notice defect was therefore treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. Section 11(1) was also held not to violate article 14, because the penalty mechanism and prosecution provision operated in different fields, served different purposes, and were supported by safeguards such as prior sanction and a bar on double action on the same facts. The constitutional challenge failed and the assessment and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 02 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150111