<?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>1984 (3) TMI 353 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154060</link>
    <description>Best judgment purchase tax assessment under section 11(5) required a specific statutory notice in the prescribed form and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceedings could validly begin. Notices that merely asked for account books and threatened ex parte assessment, without stating that best judgment assessment was being undertaken, were insufficient; because the assessment was also framed beyond the statutory period, it was invalid and without jurisdiction. Penalty based on that assessment could not be sustained, as it depended on a valid tax determination, and the delayed initiation of penalty proceedings was also found unreasonable in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:35:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 353 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154060</link>
      <description>Best judgment purchase tax assessment under section 11(5) required a specific statutory notice in the prescribed form and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceedings could validly begin. Notices that merely asked for account books and threatened ex parte assessment, without stating that best judgment assessment was being undertaken, were insufficient; because the assessment was also framed beyond the statutory period, it was invalid and without jurisdiction. Penalty based on that assessment could not be sustained, as it depended on a valid tax determination, and the delayed initiation of penalty proceedings was also found unreasonable in the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>