Re-assessment Orders Overturned Due to Lack of Initial Review; Finance Dept. Concedes Error Based on Supreme Court Precedent.Challenged the re-assessment order without prior assessment - HELD THAT:- The petitioner contended that a re-assessment order was issued without any prior assessment, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ghanshyamdas Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [ 1963 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] . The Standing Counsel for the Finance Department acknowledged that the re-assessment orders were indeed passed without any initial assessment. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and th... ... ... Issues Involved: Petitioner challenges re-assessment order without prior assessment.

Summary:
The petitioner contended that a re-assessment order was issued without any prior assessment, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ghanshyamdas Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur. The Standing Counsel for the Finance Department acknowledged that the re-assessment orders were indeed passed without any initial assessment. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the re-assessment orders were set aside. Challenged the re-assessment order without prior assessment - HELD THAT:- The petitioner contended that a re-assessment order was issued without any prior assessment, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ghanshyamdas Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [ 1963 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] . The Standing Counsel for the Finance Department acknowledged that the re-assessment orders were indeed passed without any initial assessment. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the re-assessment orders were set aside. RADHESHYAM GOYAL and SONS Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
Indian Laws
2015 (8) TMI 1580 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT - TMI
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - HC
Dated:- 12-8-2015
WP(C) 4652/2015 - -
Indian Laws
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. K. SREEDHAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA ORDER It is the contention of the petitioner that without being assessment, there has been re-assessment order, which is illegal. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur and others, reported in [1964] 51 ITR 557 (SC) is relied upon. The Standing Counsel, Finance Department, submits that re-assessment orders were passed without there being any assessment. In that view of the matter, the petitions are allowed. The re-assessment orders are set aside.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders