Madon, J. - (1.) Both these references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, arise out of an order of reassessment made against the respondents, who were registered as dealers under the said Act. The period in respect of which the reassessment in question was made was 19th September, 1956, to 31st March, 1957.
(2.) It appears that the respondents maintained their books of account according to Samvat year and, according to that calendar, the period of reassessment would include a part of S.Y. 2012 and also of S.Y. 2013, the year corresponding to S.Y. 2012, according to the Gregorian Calendar being 15th November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956, and corresponding to S.Y. 2013 being 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. In respect of the period in question, the respondents had filed their returns and in pursuance thereof had been assessed to tax under section 14(3) of the said Act. Against this order of assessment the respondents filed an appeal. While this appeal was pending, the Enforcement Branch raided the place of business of the respondents and seized certain books of account for S. Ys. 2014 to 2018, which books had not been produced by the respondents in their assessment for the said period of S. Ys. 2014 to 2018. The books produced by them in their assessment proceedings for the said years being a different set, the figures appearing in them did not tally with the figures appearing in the books seized by the Enforcement Branch.
(3.) Thereupon, on 11th March, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (II), Enforcement, Bombay City Division, issued to the respondents a notice under form XIV to the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, stating that he was satisfied that the sales of the value of Rs. 2,28,273 and purchases of the value of Rs. 2,14,912 for the period 19th September, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, had escaped assessment. By the said notice, he directed the respondents to attend in person or by a legal practitioner or an agent authorised in writing to attend at his office at the time and place specified in the said notice and to show cause as to why the amount of tax payable by the respondents in respect of the said sales and purchases should not be assessed. By the said notice, the respondents were also directed to produce or cause to be produced all their books of account, registers, documents, etc., for S.Y. 2013 as also any other evidence for determining the correct amount of tax payable by them for the said period. Along with the said notice, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded to the respondents his letter dated 11th March, 1964, setting out the reasons for arriving at his satisfaction that sales and purchases of the value set out in the said notice had escaped assessment. The respondents submitted a written reply to the said notice and the said letter as also appeared through Advocate at the hearing before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected all the contentions advanced by the respondents, and by his order dated 23rd June, 1966, he reassessed the dealer holding that the sales and purchases of the value set out in the said notice had escaped assessment. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner the respondents filed a revision application, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax by his order dated 7th October, 1966. Thereupon, the respondents approached the Sales Tax Tribunal in further revision. After the matter was argued for some time before the Regular Bench of the Tribunal, in view of the conflict of decisions given by the Tribunal earlier on the two points urged before it, the Tribunal directed the matter to be placed before a Special Bench, and referred to such Special Bench two questions, namely : "(1) Whether the Assistant Commissioner, while dealing with the turnover escaping assessment under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, was competent to make a best judgment assessment of the escaped turnover ? (2) Where the turnover of sales is estimated according to a best judgment assessment, whether the purchases so estimated or any part thereof could be treated as purchases from registered dealers ?";