TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disallowed and subjected to tax ... Rs. 98.67 lakhs 2.. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Act, carries on business of manufacturing and selling different kinds of refractory products. The assessment was completed ex parte on December 9, 1993, on the ground that in spite of several opportunities, relevant books of accounts and/or declaration forms were not produced. The petitioner has filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and moved for stay. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, by order dated January 20, 1994, directed payment of Rs. 5 crores. During pendency of the revision application before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the petitioner moved this Court for a direction to the revisional authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration, as the assessment had been completed on December 9, 1993. On that date the order of assessment purported to have been passed on December 9, 1993, was communicated. According to the petitioner, it filed hazira on December 13, 1993, seeking time till January 31, 1994. That day nothing was communicated to it, though the matter is claimed to have been disposed of on December 9, 1993. Therefore, it is apparent that the order of assessment has been ante-dated. During the course of hearing of the stay application the petitioner on January 13, 1994, filed large number of declaration forms, which were not considered by the first appellate authority. They were returned to the petitioner on the ground that the same should be filed at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial difficulty, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4 crores. 3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the approach of the revisional authority has been rather unrealistic. He has tried to justify the action of the assessing officer without taking note of various discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the declaration forms were before the revisional authority, and he had not taken note of them on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the same before the assessing officer. He did not take note of the difficulties indicated by the petitioner, and the reasons justifying the delayed presentation. It is submitted that the direction to pay Rs. 4 crores is arbitrary and without takin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The answer is an emphatic no. The revisional authority has observed that some of the declaration forms were issued to the purchasing dealer before the date of assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in spite of best efforts and repeated reminders to the purchasing dealer by the selling dealer, if former does not issue forms and subsequently issues the same, and the selling dealer produces the forms before the first appellate authority, the appellate authority should accept the forms. There can be no dispute that this proposition is sound as a general rule. But the selling dealer has to show that he was making efforts and in spite of it, there was no response by the purchasing dealer. In such a case, the declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
