<?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>2000 (9) TMI 1009 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160453</link>
    <description>Deemed assessments under section 9A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 could be reopened only after the prescribed enquiry under section 9A(2) and rule 22AA, and valid service of notice was essential to that process. Notices sent to the dealer&#039;s old address, despite the updated registration record, were treated as service at a wrong and non-existent address and therefore as non-service in law. Because the dealer received no effective notice or opportunity to object, the defect in service went to the root of the reopening proceeding. The article also notes that reliance on rule 22A was irrelevant to the validity of reopening, and the clubbing objection did not justify dismissal at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:08:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 1009 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160453</link>
      <description>Deemed assessments under section 9A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 could be reopened only after the prescribed enquiry under section 9A(2) and rule 22AA, and valid service of notice was essential to that process. Notices sent to the dealer&#039;s old address, despite the updated registration record, were treated as service at a wrong and non-existent address and therefore as non-service in law. Because the dealer received no effective notice or opportunity to object, the defect in service went to the root of the reopening proceeding. The article also notes that reliance on rule 22A was irrelevant to the validity of reopening, and the clubbing objection did not justify dismissal at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>