TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. The petitioner challenges the imposition of penalty and the orders passed against it on the plea that it was not given a notice containing precisely and clearly the gist of accusations as mandatorily required under rule 19(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. The facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner-firm was registered as a dealer on May 29, 1999 with liability to pay tax from October 15, 1998. In its return for the year 1998-99, the petitioner showed the gross turnover of Rs. 36,000. On the other hand, the Revenue Authorities obtained the receipts of sales of pump sets and other materials in that regard from the Land Development Bank, Muzaffarpur from which it appeared that the sales by the petitioner ran i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads as follows: You are given notice that for hearing under section 20(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 before the undersigned on February 8, 2000, you are required to appear with your entire books of account. The service report of notice was received on February 8, 2000. On that date, the proceeding was adjourned, for the last time, to February 18, 2000. On February 18, 2000, once again a time petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the proceeding was fixed for February 29, 2000: on that date the final order was passed. From the contents of the notice No. 5944/P, it is evident that it did not contain clearly and precisely that gist of accusations . It appears that the point was squarely raised before the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder the accusations against the petitioner or the materials that had come within the knowledge of the Revenue. On December 28, 1999, the order, for the first time, indicated the wide gap between the gross turnover stated in the petitioner's return and the figure of sales as appearing from the materials received from the bank. But there is nothing to show that the order, dated December 28, 1999 was passed in presence of the petitioner. From the order sheet, it appears that the order dated December 22, 1999 (simple adjournment) was shown to the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the order, dated December 28, 1999 too was shown to the petitioner. A copy of the order dated December 28, 1999 was also not sent with the notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
