Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Company ... on 13 February, 1985
As observed in Andhra Steel Corporation's case , the grant of exemption as a result of failure to apply the mind by the assessing authority is one of the legitimate grounds for making reassessment under section 14(4)(cc).
Fatechand And Sons vs The Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, ... on 30 December, 1982
13. The necessity to restrict the scope of sub-section (4) of section 14 was felt by Jeevan Reddy, J., having regard to the need to impart finality to assessment coupled with the existence of a remedy under section 20 to the department to set aside an illegal or improper order operating to the detriment of Revenue. The dicta laid down in Fatechand's case and in Menta Narasimhaswamy & Company v. State of A.P. was cited with approval by the learned Judge. In the latter case, it was held that the power under section 14(4) cannot be exercised for reviewing an order on the same material.
Menta Narasimhaswamy & Company vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December, 1982
13. The necessity to restrict the scope of sub-section (4) of section 14 was felt by Jeevan Reddy, J., having regard to the need to impart finality to assessment coupled with the existence of a remedy under section 20 to the department to set aside an illegal or improper order operating to the detriment of Revenue. The dicta laid down in Fatechand's case and in Menta Narasimhaswamy & Company v. State of A.P. was cited with approval by the learned Judge. In the latter case, it was held that the power under section 14(4) cannot be exercised for reviewing an order on the same material.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Ratna Sree Box Makers on 21 February, 1989
15. We have our own reservations in accepting the principle too broadly stated by Neeladri Rao, J., in Ratna Sree Box Makers' case [1980] 75 STC 82 (AP) that for exercising the power under section 14(4)(cc), some material outside the assessment record must form the basis. However, without disputing the principles laid down in the above case, we find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that both the conditions for the exercise of power as laid down in the decided cases are satisfied here. In the present case, the reopening was occasioned by the inspection of business premises of the alleged purchasing dealer at Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. Some of the way-bill copies pertaining to the disputed transaction were found with the purchasing dealer at Vijayawada. From those way-bills, it can be deducted that there was no real movement of goods. At the same time, the excise transport permits showed that the goods were received and taken to stock by the Vijayawada dealer. This naturally evoked reasonable doubt in the mind of the assessing authority and made him to probe further into the matter. It was as a result of such probe it was found that the alleged first sales made by the petitioner were fictitious and the alleged purchases from M/s. Raj Trading Company, Vijayawada and S. S. Wine Palace, Visakhapatnam were also fictitious. This is how the proceedings for reopening the assessment were initiated. It is obvious that the material de hors the assessment record was taken into account for the purpose of initiating the reassessment as well as for the purpose of recording the conclusion that the petitioner failed to disclose the correct turnover. It is not a case of reassessment made on change of opinion at all. The assessment order does not show that the assessing authority had in mind the grossly low sale price realised by the petitioner from the alleged first sales and the repurchase of the same stocks from the buyers at a slightly higher price.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras Represented By The ... vs Louis Dreyfus And Company Ltd. on 16 February, 1956
"This is not a case where there was any change of opinion by the assessing authority. The notice has been issued in this case, because the assessing authority had thought that exemption had been wrongly granted to the assessee without calling upon him to furnish necessary proof of the facts."