https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150515 Under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the statutory requirement is a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and notice under Rule 22 is only the procedural means of giving that opportunity. A defective notice, or even omission of notice, does not by itself invalidate an assessment unless prejudice is shown; here, the dealer appeared, raised no timely objection, and showed no prejudice, so the assessments were upheld. A finding of fact is not binding where material evidence is ignored. Because the Tribunal failed to deal adequately with relevant slips, cash memos and notebook entries showing business activity, its annulment of the assessments could not stand. en-us Mon, 08 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 May 2013 18:19:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150515 Under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the statutory requirement is a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and notice under Rule 22 is only the procedural means of giving that opportunity. A defective notice, or even omission of notice, does not by itself invalidate an assessment unless prejudice is shown; here, the dealer appeared, raised no timely objection, and showed no prejudice, so the assessments were upheld. A finding of fact is not binding where material evidence is ignored. Because the Tribunal failed to deal adequately with relevant slips, cash memos and notebook entries showing business activity, its annulment of the assessments could not stand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150515