PROVINCE BIHAR Vs. JOKHI RAM RAM PRASAD AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
JOKHI RAM RAM PRASAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) CASE stated under Section 21(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, (hereinafter called "the Act") at the instance of Messrs Jokhi Ram Ram Prasad of Rajmahal bearing registration certificate No. 212 S.P., in the District of the Santal Parganas (hereinafter called "the assessee") to the Honourable High Court referring certain questions of law arising out of the revisional order of the Board of Revenue on his petition against the assessment by the Sales Tax Officer, Santal Parganas, for the quarter ending the 31st December, 1944.
(2.) THE assessee was assessed to sales tax under Section 10(2) of the Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Santal Parganas, on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 58,185-13 determined for the quarter ending the 31st December, 1944. As the sales of the tax-free goods were not supported by the duplicate copies of relevant cash receipts granted to the purchasers or credit bills, as required by Rule 36(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1944, the Sales Tax Officer did not allow the assessee's claim, for deduction of Rs. 81,928-5-3 under Section 5(2)(a)(1) of the Act from his total determined turnover of Rs. 94,346-5-6 for the quarter in question. In the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer, as set forth in his order of assessment dated the 16th July, 1945 (copy enclosed Exhibit A), production of the duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills of the kind mentioned in Rule 36(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1944, is mandatory; and non-compliance with the requirements of this rule on the part of a dealer means that he does not wish to claim the deduction under Section 5(2)(a)(1) of the Act.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhagalpur, on the 13th September, 1945, on the grounds stated in the appeal petition, a copy of which is enclosed (Exhibit B). For the reasons stated in his order dated the 5th December, 1945 (copy enclosed C), the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment and dismissed the appeal. It appeared to him highly suspicious why the assessee, being a big dealer, had failed to maintain a stock register of all the purchases that he made during the quarter under assessment as well as a regular Bilti Bahi (Register of railway receipts) with reference to Bijak (invoices) under which he received goods for resale. The Sales Tax Officer, he held, was therefore, justified in making the assessment to the best of his judgment.
(3.) THE assessee then moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhagalpur, in revision under Section 20(3) of the Act on the 18th January, 1946, on the grounds mentioned in the petition, a copy of which is enclosed (Exhibit D). For the reasons stated in his order dated the 3rd April, 1946, the Commissioner saw no reason to interfere with the lower appellate Court's order, and dismissed the petition. A copy of the Commissioner's order dated the 3rd April, 1946, is enclosed (Exhibit E).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.