1993 (3) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the appellate order dated February 20, 1984. It is also directed against revisional order dated May 8, 1986, passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal. 2.. In short, the case of the applicant is that the assessment order was made ex parte on April 9, 1980, after prayer for adjournment was refused on the previous day. He alleges that refusal of adjournment amounted to denial of opportunity of being heard. The assessment is also alleged to be arbitrary and without any basis. The applicant's assessment related to his business under the name and style of M/s. Abdul Hamid (Fertiliser Co.). The applicant received the demand notice on May 8, 1980, on the basis of the aforesaid order. He applied for ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....86, staying the certificate proceedings. 3.. The case has been resisted by the respondents through an affidavit-inopposition. The ex parte assessment order and the order of rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation have been defended. The applicant filed an affidavitin-reply in which he, inter alia, maintained that the period of limitation of sixty days from the date of receipt of the demand notice for filing of appeal would not be applicable to the case of the applicant, because the demand notice served on the applicant in respect of the period in question was invalid, as it did not specify any date, which should be not less than thirty days from the date of service of notice under section 11(3) of the 1941 Act. 4.. At the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aspect, because the appellate order dated February 20, 1984 and the Tribunal's revisional order dated May 8, 1986, have become infructuous in view of the defective notice of demand. 6.. As indicated above, the certificate case cannot be sustained. Section 11(3) of the 1941 Act requires that a demand notice must be served, specifying a date for payment of the due tax and penalty, if any, and such date shall not be less than thirty days from the date of service of the demand notice. Until and unless a demand notice with such specified date for payment is served, the question of recovery of due tax and penalty, if any, in consequence of the impugned assessment order does not arise. Learned State Representative fairly submitted that the ....