Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972 cites

N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 22 January, 1971

Moreover, we find that there was no case taken up by the Company in its petition before the High Court that any short levy resulted from an inadvertence. of the officer concerned in the process of assessment. The case set up was that of a levy after a completed assessment, in accordance with law, which could not, according to the Company, be reopened. If, therefore, as we find from the conclusions recorded by the High Court itself what took place was not an "asseessment" at all in the eye of law, which could not be reopened outside the provisions of Rule 10, we think that the case will fall beyond Rule 10 as it stood at the relevant time. The notice set out above does not purpoe, to be issued under any particular rule probably because the Collector,. in the circumstances of the case, was not certain about the rule under which the notice could fall. But, as was pointed out by this Court in Sanjana's case (Supra), the failure to specify the provision under which a notice is sent would not invalidate it if the power to issue such a notice was there. The notice alleges that it is a case of "incomplete assess- ment". The allegations contained in it have been characterised by the learned counsel for the Company as a change of front intended to cover up the neglet of the Collector in failing to comply with the correct procedure of making either an assessment before delievery contemplated by Rule 52 or a provisional assessment under Rule 10-B. We are unable to hold, either upon the findings given by the High Court or upon facts transpiring from the affidavits filed by the parties that the notice was a mere cloak for some omission or error or inadvertence of the Collector in making a levy or an assessment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 218 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

K.M.Kochumadhavan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 12 May, 1967

It will be noticed that in Chapter III, the term "assessment" was used only in the former rule 10-B, corresponding to the present rule 9-B, while dealing with provisional assessment of duty. But, Rule 52 shows that an "assessment" is obligatory before every removal of manufactured goods. The rules however, neither specify the kind of notice which should precede assessment nor lay down the need to pass an assessment order. All we can say in that rules of natural justice have to be observed for, as was held by this Court in K. T. M. Nair v. State of Kerala(1), "the assessment of a tax on person or property is atleast of a quasi-judicial character". (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77 @ 94.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1