9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the respondent has not entered appearance. The respondent, Brijraj Rameshwar, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, started a grocery business at Sambalpur on August 22, 1948. Thinking that he was liable to pay tax under the Act, he applied on August 22, 1949, under section 9 of the Act, to be registered as a dealer. He stated in the application that his gross turnover during the period from August 22, 1948, to August 21, 1949, was Rs. 5,005. It appears that an Inspector reported on November 11, 1949, that the gross turnover of the assessee did not exceed Rs. 5,000, and it was the case of the department that on this report the application was filed on November 11, 1949. But no intimation as to this was sent to the assessee. On Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each quarter. The assessee appealed but failed to convince the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. On further appeal, however, the Sales Tax Tribunal annulled the assessments for the quarters ending on December 31, 1950, and March 31, 1951. The assessment for the quarter ending June 30, 1951, was modified but upheld and treated as under section 12(4) of the Act. On the application of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions to the High Court: 1.. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the application for registration submitted by the opponent to the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur Circle, on 22nd August, 1949, was valid and was pending till 11th September, 1951. 2.. Whether rule 6 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the third question in the negative, namely, "that in the facts and circumstances of the case the certificate of registration, granted to the opposite party on application made subsequent to the date of accrual of his liability to pay tax, did not remain valid for the entire financial year during which the application was made and the registration certificate was granted." The second part of question No. 3 was answered thus: "So, our answer to the second part of question No. 3 is that the proceedings for assessment for the quarter ending on 30th June, 1951, which commenced on 23rd November, 1953, should have been instituted under section 12(2) or section 12(4) and not under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess, to the best of his judgment the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods and the Collector may direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount so assessed, a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount." Section 12(5) enables the Collector to assess a dealer if two conditions are satisfied: (a) that the dealer was liable to pay tax in respect of a period, and (b) that he wilfully failed to apply for registration. Mr. Bindra contends that on the facts in this case both the conditions are fulfilled. He says that the application, dated August 22, 1949, must be left o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
