Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1994 (1) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount towards tax, he issued form "C" refund order for Rs. 6,09,778.53. It was also stated that amount would be adjusted towards tax for the year 1991-92. The assessment for the year 1991-92 was completed on October 12, 1993 without adjusting the refund resulting in demand of Rs. 2.40 lakhs. Petitioner has disputed the said amount and filed an appeal. He also wrote a letter requesting the first respondent that the demand for 1991-92 was wrong since an amount of Rs. 6,09,778.53 was due to him according to form "C" refund order. Apparently after receiving the above letter, the first respondent issued a notice dated December 28, 1993 requiring the petitioner to produce books of account for the year 1987-88 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g an assessment or any penalty or fee shall be made unless the assessing, appellate or revising authority has given notice to the dealer of his intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." We understand the effect of the impugned order to enhance the assessment so as to wipe away more than Rs. 6,00,000 which was paid as excess tax. We are of the opinion that counsel for the petitioner is right in insisting that he ought to have been issued a notice proposing rectification in terms of rule 50 and the first respondent ought to have allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of submissions which he would have made in reply to the show cause notice. We do not understand the notice dated....