<?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>1998 (3) TMI 674 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161211</link>
    <description>Service of notice and recorded non-appearance meant the ex parte assessment was not vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, because no valid adjournment request was shown. The note also explains that assessment under the sales tax recovery provision was competent where the assessing authority acted on enquiry material and information already within the dealer&#039;s knowledge. On recovery, attachment of bank accounts through garnishee proceedings was treated as lawful because demand had matured for payment, the attachments preceded the appeal and stay request, and no automatic statutory bar arose from the mere filing or proposed filing of such proceedings. Limited relief was granted only by directing release on security deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:27:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 674 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161211</link>
      <description>Service of notice and recorded non-appearance meant the ex parte assessment was not vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, because no valid adjournment request was shown. The note also explains that assessment under the sales tax recovery provision was competent where the assessing authority acted on enquiry material and information already within the dealer&#039;s knowledge. On recovery, attachment of bank accounts through garnishee proceedings was treated as lawful because demand had matured for payment, the attachments preceded the appeal and stay request, and no automatic statutory bar arose from the mere filing or proposed filing of such proceedings. Limited relief was granted only by directing release on security deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>