https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156123 Writ interference was not justified against a notice under section 12(5) where sales tax liability depended on the actual nature of the dealer's business. The question could not be resolved on pleadings alone and required factual enquiry by the assessing authority into the business carried on and the surrounding circumstances. The notice was only the procedural step for calling for a return and considering objections, and the dealer had to be given an opportunity to file the return, object to the proposal, and explain the materials collected. On that basis, the challenge to the notice failed. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:40:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156123 Writ interference was not justified against a notice under section 12(5) where sales tax liability depended on the actual nature of the dealer's business. The question could not be resolved on pleadings alone and required factual enquiry by the assessing authority into the business carried on and the surrounding circumstances. The notice was only the procedural step for calling for a return and considering objections, and the dealer had to be given an opportunity to file the return, object to the proposal, and explain the materials collected. On that basis, the challenge to the notice failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156123