MAHINDER SARUP BANSAL Vs. DY. C.C.T. AND ORS.
STATE TAXATION TRIBUNAL
Mahinder Sarup Bansal
Dy. C.C.T. And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE present application registered as RN -209 of 1999 is taken up together for hearing with another application numbered as RN -210 of 1999. These are applications under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 in the nature of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IN RN -209 the applicant is challenging the notice dated May 18, 1999, in respect of the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1992 asking the applicant to show cause why the deemed assessment that was made in terms of Section 11E(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Act") should not be reopened in terms of Section 11 -E(2). The notice reads as follows : "Whereas I am satisfied that the returns filed by you which formed the basis of the abovementioned deemed assessment case exhibit incorrect statement of your turnover/incorrect particulars of sales as noted below and whereas it appears to me that the assessment is required to be reopened, you are hereby directed to show cause on June 29, 1999 at 11.30 A.M. why the assessment will not be reopened.
Gist of the order proposed to be passed particulars : Evading of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 10,46,025.60."
(3.) THE contention of the applicant is that the notice does not meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice because the incorrect statement of turnover or incorrect particulars of sales alleged to have been furnished by the applicant have not been disclosed therein.
In RN -210, the applicant is the same person. He is challenging the validity of a similar notice dated May 18, 1999 in respect of the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1991. The language of the notice is identical with the language of the notice in RN -209 except the figures. There is an additional grievance in RN -210. It is that allegedly there was an order of assessment under Section 11(1) of 1941 Act in course of which documents were examined, but in spite of that, the impugned notice under Section 11 -E(2) has been issued. It is contended that in view of the order of assessment made under Section 11(1) the authorities could not resort to Section 11 -E(2).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.