MADANLAL MAHAWAR Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CENTRAL SECTION
LAWS(CAL)-1963-9-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 10,1963

MADANLAL MAHAWAR Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL SECTION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J. - (1.)At all periods material for the purpose of this Rule, the petitioners, who are three in number, and one Saraswati Mahawar used to carry on business in co-partnership under the firm name Madanlal Gajanand, as exporters, importers and order suppliers, at No. 28, Armenian Street, in the town of Calcutta. Saraswati Mahawar is now dead and the three petitioners are now the only partners of the firm above-named.
(2.)On 7th August, 1958, the firm obtained a certificate of registration as a dealer, under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, from the Commercial Tax Officer, Amratolla Charge (respondent No. 3). Under the registration certificate, the petitioner was required to submit quarterly returns in every samvat year, which was the accounting year of the firm. Respectively on 9th February, 1960, and 24th May, 1960, the petitioners, in their firm name, allege to have submitted their quarterly returns for the quarters ending Magh Bodi 14, 2016 S.Y. (corresponding to 27th January, 1960) and Baisakh Bodi 14, 2017 S.Y. (corresponding to 24th April, 1960) and deposited the admitted amount of tax.
(3.)On 7th June, 1960, the Commercial Tax Officer, Amratolla Charge, (respondent No. 3) served a notice in Form VI upon the petitioners therein stating, (i) that inasmuch as the petitioners had not furnished any return for the quarter ending Baisakh Bodi 14, 2017 S.Y. and (ii) that inasmuch as he was not satisfied that the return filed by the petitioners for the quarter ending Magh Bodi 14, 2016 S.Y. was correct and complete, he proposed to assess the petitioners under Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The petitioners, inter alia, state that in so far as the notice proceeded on the basis that the petitioners had filed no return for the quarter ending Baisakh Bodi 14, 2017, the same was incorrect and imaginative in nature. Nevertheless, proceeding on the basis of such incorrect notice the Commercial Tax Officer, Amratolla Charge (respondent No. 3), made a purported best judgment assessment on the petitioners for the two quarters above-mentioned and issued a notice demanding a sum of Rs. 1,55,766-10-0 as tax. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharamtolla Circle, Calcutta, under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.