https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352366 Penalty under section 34(7) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained because the prescribed notice in Form 309 under rule 46 was not issued before the penalty order. Section 34(7) requires an opportunity of being heard, and rule 46(1) mandates notice specifying the default and the provision under which penalty is proposed. As no Form 309 notice was served, the statutory hearing requirement was breached and the penalty procedure was held mandatory. The Gujarat HC upheld deletion of the penalty in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:28:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352366 Penalty under section 34(7) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained because the prescribed notice in Form 309 under rule 46 was not issued before the penalty order. Section 34(7) requires an opportunity of being heard, and rule 46(1) mandates notice specifying the default and the provision under which penalty is proposed. As no Form 309 notice was served, the statutory hearing requirement was breached and the penalty procedure was held mandatory. The Gujarat HC upheld deletion of the penalty in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352366