<?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>2008 (4) TMI 693 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164088</link>
    <description>Proper service of notice is essential where the assessment statutes require a reasonable opportunity of hearing before ex parte assessment. If the postal cover is returned unserved and service is not otherwise established, the presumption of service cannot be drawn, so the assessment orders cannot stand. Appellate orders founded on the same defective service are equally unsustainable, and consequential recovery proceedings must fall with the invalid assessments. The text also notes that the revisional applications were not entertainable before the Additional Commissioner, who lacked jurisdiction and should have returned them to the competent forum, but limitation had already expired, making remand futile.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:54:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 693 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164088</link>
      <description>Proper service of notice is essential where the assessment statutes require a reasonable opportunity of hearing before ex parte assessment. If the postal cover is returned unserved and service is not otherwise established, the presumption of service cannot be drawn, so the assessment orders cannot stand. Appellate orders founded on the same defective service are equally unsustainable, and consequential recovery proceedings must fall with the invalid assessments. The text also notes that the revisional applications were not entertainable before the Additional Commissioner, who lacked jurisdiction and should have returned them to the competent forum, but limitation had already expired, making remand futile.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>