1996 (8) TMI 478 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for assessment without application of mind.
2. Lack of opportunity of hearing before extending the assessment period.
3. Incorrect and incomplete name of the respondent-company in the extension order.
4. Non-communication of the extension order to the respondent-company.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Extension of Time for Assessment Without Application of Mind
The respondent-company contended that the Commissioner extended the assessment period by six months without applying his mind. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed after the statutory five-year period had expired. The Commissioner granted an extension on March 27, 1982, based on a request made by the Commercial Taxes Officer on March 25, 1982. The Tribunal found that the extension was granted in a routine and mechanical manner, without recording reasons or considering the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal ultimately held that Section 10-BB of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, inserted in 1990 with retrospective effect from September 13, 1979, validated such extensions even if granted without recording reasons. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the extension of time was legally valid.

Issue 2: Lack of Opportunity of Hearing Before Extending the Assessment Period
The respondent-company argued that it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioner extended the assessment period. The Tribunal acknowledged that no notice was given to the respondent-company, and no opportunity of hearing was provided. However, it held that Section 10-BB validated the extension of time without requiring a notice or hearing. The Tribunal cited the decision in *Commercial Taxes Officer v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd.* [1993] 91 STC 332 (Raj), which established that extensions granted without notice or recording reasons were valid under Section 10-BB.

Issue 3: Incorrect and Incomplete Name of the Respondent-Company in the Extension Order
The respondent-company claimed that the extension order did not mention its correct and complete name. The Tribunal found this ground to be without substance. It noted that the assessment order dated September 29, 1982, and the appellate order dated March 18, 1983, were both in the name of the respondent-company, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the omission, if any, did not prejudice the respondent-company in any way.

Issue 4: Non-Communication of the Extension Order to the Respondent-Company
The respondent-company contended that the extension order was not communicated to it. The Tribunal held that the extension order did not need to be communicated to the respondent-company as it was a matter between the Commissioner and the assessing authority. Since no notice was required to be given, the question of communication did not arise.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order of the Tax Board dated March 12, 1987, and upheld the assessment orders dated March 29, 1982, and the appellate orders dated March 18, 1983. The Tribunal found that all four grounds on which the Tax Board had accepted the appeals were without merit, primarily due to the validating effect of Section 10-BB of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the law should serve the ends of justice and not be constrained by technicalities and procedural formalities.

← Previous Next →