<?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>1996 (3) TMI 503 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158711</link>
    <description>Prior notice and a real opportunity to object are mandatory before assessment under rule 16(6) and short-levy determination under rule 23(1) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. Because the assessable value, tax, penalty, and short levy had already been worked out before the prescribed notices were effectively served, the statutory hearing requirement was not met in substance. The resulting demands under sections 14(3) and 17(1) were therefore invalid for breach of the notice procedure and natural justice. The underlying liability issue was left open, and fresh proceedings could be initiated only after full compliance with the statutory notice and hearing requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:13:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 503 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158711</link>
      <description>Prior notice and a real opportunity to object are mandatory before assessment under rule 16(6) and short-levy determination under rule 23(1) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. Because the assessable value, tax, penalty, and short levy had already been worked out before the prescribed notices were effectively served, the statutory hearing requirement was not met in substance. The resulting demands under sections 14(3) and 17(1) were therefore invalid for breach of the notice procedure and natural justice. The underlying liability issue was left open, and fresh proceedings could be initiated only after full compliance with the statutory notice and hearing requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>