<?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>Reassessment notice service and natural justice failure led to setting aside assessment despite timely issuance of notice.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98405</link>
    <description>Reassessment notice law distinguishes issuance from service: limitation under Section 149 was satisfied because the notice under Section 148 was issued within time, so the reopening was not void for want of jurisdiction. However, the Department failed to prove actual service of the statutory notice before reassessment was completed. The Court treated this as an irregular assumption of jurisdiction amounting to breach of natural justice, set aside the reassessment order and consequential demand, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after service of notice and opportunity of hearing. It also held that writ jurisdiction was available despite an alternate remedy because the challenge involved violation of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reassessment notice service and natural justice failure led to setting aside assessment despite timely issuance of notice.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98405</link>
      <description>Reassessment notice law distinguishes issuance from service: limitation under Section 149 was satisfied because the notice under Section 148 was issued within time, so the reopening was not void for want of jurisdiction. However, the Department failed to prove actual service of the statutory notice before reassessment was completed. The Court treated this as an irregular assumption of jurisdiction amounting to breach of natural justice, set aside the reassessment order and consequential demand, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after service of notice and opportunity of hearing. It also held that writ jurisdiction was available despite an alternate remedy because the challenge involved violation of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>