Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs A.M. Abdul Wasigh And Bros. on 6 September, 1961 cites

The State Of Bihar vs Telu Ram Jain on 15 January, 1953

5. It is obvious that the aforesaid propositions would be of no help, where the order not communicated be consequential to and dependent on an earlier order, which the party aggrieved had notice of and fair opportunity of complying with; for, then no infringement of rules of natural justice takes place, which the rules mentioned above intend to guard against. The party in such a case, being earlier told what the consequences of the failure would be, must be presumed to know the consequences of the failure, and should the earlier order be unjust the appellate authority consistently with rules governing appellate powers would afford appropriate relief. We think the Sales Tax Officer's earlier order is not such, and the dealer was informed what the consequences of the failure would be. Nor do we see how the assessing authority can, in the absence of particular rules, be held bound to reopen an assessment order on receipt of later applications submitting documents. There are cases like State of Bihar v. Telu Ram Jain [1953] 4 S.T.C. 252, Shimbhaoli Sugar Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1953] 4 S.T.C. 289 and Rahman Stores v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [1953] 4 S.T.C. 336, where it has been held, following the rule of construction of enactment that, unless the Legislature otherwise directs, the order should be treated as passed on the date that it is made, and its operation would not be suspended till the party gets notice. According to these cases, the dealer's knowledge of the assessment would not be very material, and in this case, what would be relevant is whether the dealer had not been given adequate information Of what would be the consequences of his failure to adduce evidence after a particular period. . Therefore, in this case, the relevant date would be not of the assessment order but of the order directing the dealer to give evidence in support of the case, which was admittedly served on the dealer before the assessment order, i.e., on January 27, 1959. In that order the consequence of such failure was also indicated, and it would be straining the relevant rules by holding that the Taxing Officer was bound to admit evidence after the final assessment had been made and issued to the dealer. The Tribunal may be right in holding that the right to adduce the C Forms in the case existed prior to the final assessment order, but it failed to note that the C Forms had been furnished after the final assessment had been made. The assessment rests on the service of the earlier order, and the Taxing Officer is not bound to adjourn cases for receiving evidence. The relevant rule reads as follows :-
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 6 April, 1953

5. It is obvious that the aforesaid propositions would be of no help, where the order not communicated be consequential to and dependent on an earlier order, which the party aggrieved had notice of and fair opportunity of complying with; for, then no infringement of rules of natural justice takes place, which the rules mentioned above intend to guard against. The party in such a case, being earlier told what the consequences of the failure would be, must be presumed to know the consequences of the failure, and should the earlier order be unjust the appellate authority consistently with rules governing appellate powers would afford appropriate relief. We think the Sales Tax Officer's earlier order is not such, and the dealer was informed what the consequences of the failure would be. Nor do we see how the assessing authority can, in the absence of particular rules, be held bound to reopen an assessment order on receipt of later applications submitting documents. There are cases like State of Bihar v. Telu Ram Jain [1953] 4 S.T.C. 252, Shimbhaoli Sugar Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1953] 4 S.T.C. 289 and Rahman Stores v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [1953] 4 S.T.C. 336, where it has been held, following the rule of construction of enactment that, unless the Legislature otherwise directs, the order should be treated as passed on the date that it is made, and its operation would not be suspended till the party gets notice. According to these cases, the dealer's knowledge of the assessment would not be very material, and in this case, what would be relevant is whether the dealer had not been given adequate information Of what would be the consequences of his failure to adduce evidence after a particular period. . Therefore, in this case, the relevant date would be not of the assessment order but of the order directing the dealer to give evidence in support of the case, which was admittedly served on the dealer before the assessment order, i.e., on January 27, 1959. In that order the consequence of such failure was also indicated, and it would be straining the relevant rules by holding that the Taxing Officer was bound to admit evidence after the final assessment had been made and issued to the dealer. The Tribunal may be right in holding that the right to adduce the C Forms in the case existed prior to the final assessment order, but it failed to note that the C Forms had been furnished after the final assessment had been made. The assessment rests on the service of the earlier order, and the Taxing Officer is not bound to adjourn cases for receiving evidence. The relevant rule reads as follows :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1