M.N.Shukla, Ag.C.J. - (1.) The assessee, namely, the Food Corporation of India, procures foodgrains for the Central Pool of the Government of India from the cultivators and grain dealers. The procurement price is fixed by the Government of India and after procurement the grain is stored in the godown of the Food Corporation of India and is subsequently distributed through the public distribution system under the orders of the Government of India and the State Government. For the year 1967-68 regular assessment was made on 24th March, 1972, by the assessing officer and the disclosed version of the assessee was accepted. It was taxed on the turnover of purchase as disclosed by it.
(2.) Subsequently, however, a notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 28th March, 1972, to the assessee which stated that a part of turnover had escaped assessment. The asses-see put in appearance and on 26th March, 1972 the assessment order was passed. Against that order the assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax who remanded the case for assessment afresh. After remand the case was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) who fixed the taxable turnover under Section 21 at Rs. 21,78,000 vide order dated 28th February, 1978. The tax on that turnover came to Rs. 34,805.42. The first appeal against the order was decided by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Kanpur who reduced the tax by Rs. 2,135.42. The assessee came in second appeal which was decided by the Sales Tax Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow by its order dated 9th July, 1981, which has been impugned in the present revision.
(3.) Two points were urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Firstly, the notice under Section 21 of the Act was assailed on the ground that it did not recite therein the particulars of the alleged escaped turnover. The terminology of Section 21 makes it clear that a notice thereunder shall be competent only if the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer for any assessment year or part thereof has escaped assessment to tax. Thus, the condition precedent to such notice is that the assessing authority must have reason to believe that such escape of assessment has actually taken place. It is not sufficient that such belief should be purely mental or subjective. It must be reflected in the notice in the sense that it should indicate that the authority concerned had reason to believe. If this crucial ingredient is not expressed in the notice and there is nothing in its terms to indicate that according to the authority reason to believe did exist, the validity of the notice would be destroyed. But this legal requirement is some times over-elaborated and over emphasised to the extent that it is argued that the material or ground maintaining such belief must also be recited in the order. This contention is untenable. Surely, a notice under Section 21 of the Act would be invalid if it did not indicate that the assessing authority had reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer for any assessment year or part thereof had escaped assessment and that a claim had wrongly been allowed. The belief of the assessing authority noted above and communication thereof to the person concerned are the very foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act. The absence of such belief and its reflection in the notice would make it invalid but no further requirements are enjoined by law In the instant case the finding of the Tribunal is that after perusal of the notice in question it was clear that the assessing officer had come to the conclusion that a part of the turnover had escaped assessment. In my opinion under the law it was not necessary to give details in the notice and such details could later be furnished to the dealer during the course of assessment. Thus, I find no substance in the first contention raised on behalf of the revisionist.;