<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1982 (6) TMI 242 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153189</link>
    <description>Adverse material collected by the Assessing Authority cannot be relied upon to frame an assessment unless the assessee is first given a real and adequate opportunity to rebut it. Here, the dealer was called upon to explain entries in a seized diary and the genuineness of transactions with specified purchasers, but the decisive notice was served only on the evening before the next day&#039;s hearing. That left no meaningful opportunity to meet the material proposed for use against the assessee. The assessment was therefore held vitiated for want of reasonable hearing, and the remaining question did not require separate adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:12:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 242 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153189</link>
      <description>Adverse material collected by the Assessing Authority cannot be relied upon to frame an assessment unless the assessee is first given a real and adequate opportunity to rebut it. Here, the dealer was called upon to explain entries in a seized diary and the genuineness of transactions with specified purchasers, but the decisive notice was served only on the evening before the next day&#039;s hearing. That left no meaningful opportunity to meet the material proposed for use against the assessee. The assessment was therefore held vitiated for want of reasonable hearing, and the remaining question did not require separate adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>