https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346447 Rule 5 of the Haryana Imposition of Penalty Rules, 2003 was construed as directory rather than mandatory: although notice is to fix a date within seven days, the Collector may grant further time in a fit case without violating the Rule. The Court also held that refusing the first request for adjournment, where the Accounts Manager was absent and serious penal consequences were involved, denied a fair opportunity to reply and was inconsistent with natural justice. The denial of any opportunity to meet the material relied on caused prejudice and could not sustain the penalty proceedings as conducted, requiring a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of defence. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:41:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346447 Rule 5 of the Haryana Imposition of Penalty Rules, 2003 was construed as directory rather than mandatory: although notice is to fix a date within seven days, the Collector may grant further time in a fit case without violating the Rule. The Court also held that refusing the first request for adjournment, where the Accounts Manager was absent and serious penal consequences were involved, denied a fair opportunity to reply and was inconsistent with natural justice. The denial of any opportunity to meet the material relied on caused prejudice and could not sustain the penalty proceedings as conducted, requiring a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of defence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346447