Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1955 (4) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax Officer to give him a date for producing his account books. This opportunity was allowed to the petitioner and the account books were produced by him on 28th September, 1954. Thereafter the following assessment order, purporting to be an order under section 7(2) of the Act, was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dehra Dun, on 15th November, 1954: "Messrs. Northern India Lime Marketing Association, Dehra Dun, are paying sales tax on previous years' basis. They had filed a return under section 7(1) for the year ending 31st March, 1954. Their accounts were finally checked on 28th September, 1954. The account books produced before me were: a sales register, ledger and bill books. The books were scrutinised and signed. Some enquiries were also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he year 1953-54 and the turnover shown as sales is not their actual turnover. By adding about 20% for concealed sales to the turnover shown in books, their turnover for 1953-54 is estimated at Rs. 2,30,000. Sales tax on this at the rate of three pies per rupee comes to Rs. 3,593-12-0. They shall deposit Rs. 1,797-12-0 within 16 days of receipt of this order and the balance in two equal instalments of Rs. 898 each by the end of January 1955 and April 1955." The present petition was filed on 21st December, 1954, and on the same date the petitioner obtained an ad interim order restraining the opposite party, the Sales Tax Officer, Dehra Dun, from realising that portion of the assessed tax about which a demand had already been made. The relie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... will issue when the decision of an inferior court or tribunal is erroneous in law, and the error is apparent on the face of the record: Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaq(1). The error in the present case however is not an error of law since it is not an error in any finding on a question of law. It is merely a clerical error. The first ground on which the order in question is assailed has there- fore no force. The other ground put forward on behalf of the petitioner appears however to be well-founded. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Sales Tax Officer it is averred that on 28th September, 1954, the petitioner's counsel produced sales registers, ledger, stock register and bill books, that on checking the ledger it was found that there was d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les and the amount of bills debited to the United Commercial Bank, Dehra Dun, but there is no mention in the order that the petitioner or his counsel was asked to explain this discrepancy and that on being so asked they were unable to satisfy the Sales Tax Officer on that point. What appears from the order is that on finding the aforesaid dis- crepancy in the books of account of the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer made certain enquiries which enquiries, according to his order, completed on 6th November, 1954. The order shows that it was only as a result of these enquiries that the Sales Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown the actual amount of sales made by him during the year in question, and that the turn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stances, I accept the conten- tion put forward on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment order in question was passed without having given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This opportunity the Sales Tax Officer was bound to give to the petitioner under the mandatory provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer therefore acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order since the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice embodied in the said proviso. The petitioner is there- fore entitled to a writ of certiorari for quashing that order. The Sales Tax Officer will no doubt make the assessment afresh in accordance with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates