MANCHANDA, J. - (1.) THIS is a case stated under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE question referred is as follows : "Whether for assessment under section 21 for 1954-55 for which four years limitation expired on 31st March, 1959, respecting which section 21 proceedings started on an information of suppression of bales imported to the tune of 36 in number respecting which service had been effected within four years, can in this assessment proceeding under section 21 additional information received after 31st March, 1959, be utilised so as to pass the assessment under section 21 not only based on the initial information of suppression of 36 bales imported but taking into consideration the subsequent information of 350 bales as well which information was received after the expiry of four years ?" The material facts are these : The assessee is a cloth dealer carrying on business at Bareilly. The relevant year of assessment is 1954-55. Assessment proceedings under rule 41(5) read with section 7 were completed on the 31st July, 1956. The turnover was determined as a result of a best judgment assessment at Rs. 1,92,000. Thereafter, the assessing officer received information a little prior to 6th of March that 36 bales had been imported by the assessee of which the Sales Tax Officer had no knowledge at the time of the original assessment. The four years' period of limitation was to expire on the 31st March, 1959, and prior thereto on the 10th March, 1959, a notice under section 21 was issued. This was served on the assessee on the same date. In response to the said notice the dealer put in appearance on the 14th March, 1959, and asked for time to furnish certain details. The matter remained pending till the 3rd February, 1960, when the statement of the dealer was recorded and the case was fixed for the 18th February, 1960. In the meantime further information was received that besides these 36 bales, 350 more bales had been received which were also not taken into consideration at the time of the original assessment. Consequently, on the 18th February, 1960, the assessee was confronted with this information and the statement of the dealer was once again recorded. Ultimately, a best judgment assessment under section 21 was made on the 5th of March, 1960, whereby the turnover was determined at RS. 4,08,000, as against Rs. 1,92,000 as originally determined in the assessment under rule 41(5). Against this assessment an appeal was preferred.
(3.) TWO main points were taken : (1) that the proceedings under section 21 should be restricted to the 36 bales regarding which the Sales Tax Officer had information at the time the notice was issued and he could not have taken into consideration the information regarding 350 bales which were received after the period of four years within which the notice under section 21 could have been issued; and (2) that there was no basis for the determination of the turnover at Rs. 4,08,000. The Judge (Appeals) repelled the first contention holding that it was not obligatory upon the Sales Tax Officer to disclose the basis for initiating proceedings under section 21 so long as he had reasonable ground to believe that the turnover had escaped assessment. On the second question, however, the Judge (Appeals) considered that it was obligatory upon the Sales Tax Officer to disclose the basis for determining the turnover at Rs. 4,08,000. He, therefore, remanded the case for reassessment in the light of the observations made by him. Against the order of remand a revision was filed by the assessee. Before the Judge (Revisions) the order of remand was attacked on the ground that as the information with respect to the remaining 350 bales was not received within four years and as no fresh notice under section 21, in respect thereof, could have been issued, it could not be taken into consideration while making the assessment under section 21. On merits, the Judge (Revisions) was satisfied that the remand directed by the Judge (Appeals) was called for. Hence this reference at the instance of the assessee.;