TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppressing true facts and thus evaded their sales tax liabilities. It was on October 5, 1976 that the petitioner lodged a complaint against M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath regarding evasion of sales tax to the District Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad, wherein he annexed 88 copies (photo copies) of the "Uchanti Khata" (suspense account). The matter was examined by the Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer and on the basis of the same, some proceedings were initiated against private respondents and finally the Assessing Authority issued notices to erstwhile partners of the firm, namely, Bharat Singh, Munshi Lal and Mahinder Kumar as to why the best judgment assessment be not passed for the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egations. Relying upon decision of this Court reported as Baldev Raj Kabaria v. State of Punjab [1982] 50 STC 337 and two decisions of the apex Court reported as Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 STC 770 and State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 17 STC 465 the proposed notices were filed vide order dated April 16, 1986 of the Revisional Authoritycum-Excise and Taxation Officer (1), Faridabad. On appeal the matter was examined by Member, Sales Tax Tribunal vide order dated August 17, 1989. Vide composite order, eight appeals filed by two separate appellants were disposed of. The appeals filed by Mahinder Kumar were dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to file such an appeal as he is not a party to thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the petition. By way of preliminary objection it has been urged that the present petition is nothing but amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Making mention of the orders passed by the authorities under the Sales Tax Act, it was urged that the petitioner was afforded hearing in the appeals filed by Munshi Lal (then alive) and it is thereafter that those appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and this being the position the present petition is nothing but a crude attempt to harass respondents time and again. Not only this, the matter came up for hearing before this Court in C.W.P. No. 1673 of 1982, wherein the Court found no illegality in the order impugned and so dismissed the petition. The State of Haryana in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1. The appeal of respondent No. 2 was also accepted. The petitioner's grievance is that he had made a complaint against respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the assessment had come to be made by the Assessing Authority. He further states that the appeal of respondent No. 2 was accepted by respondent No. 1, without giving him a hearing and on that ground the impugned order is illegal. The order of respondent No. 1 can be split into two parts--one is acceptance of the appeal of the petitioner himself which resulted in quashing of the assessment order. In that case the order has gone in his favour and cannot be questioned by him. The second part concerns the acceptance of appeal of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
