https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257543 Section 29(7) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld as constitutional because the dealer's hearing is required at the stage of amendment of assessment, not at the stage of the Commissioner's prior permission. The prior approval operates as an administrative safeguard rather than a quasi-judicial determination, and Rule 49 validly requires notice, hearing, and enquiry before any enhancement of tax is made. The court concluded that the statutory scheme preserves natural justice in the amendment proceedings, so the Commissioner's approval and the consequential notices were not invalid. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257543 Section 29(7) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld as constitutional because the dealer's hearing is required at the stage of amendment of assessment, not at the stage of the Commissioner's prior permission. The prior approval operates as an administrative safeguard rather than a quasi-judicial determination, and Rule 49 validly requires notice, hearing, and enquiry before any enhancement of tax is made. The court concluded that the statutory scheme preserves natural justice in the amendment proceedings, so the Commissioner's approval and the consequential notices were not invalid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257543