R S SETH GOPIKISAN AGRAWAL AND SONS Vs. C L SHARMA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
LAWS(MPH)-1970-10-14
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on October 12,1970

R.S.SETH GOPIKISAN AGRAWAL AND SONS Appellant
VERSUS
C.L.SHARMA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHARAT WOOD PRODUCTS CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1986-3-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, dated 25th January, 1968 (petitioner's annexure 'c') passed as a best judgment assessment on the premises that the petitioner had failed to furnish any proof in respect of the contentions raised by him in his return whereby he sought an exemption from sales tax in respect of certain transactions in the nature of inter-State sales and sales to outside people in the course of export.
(2.)THE petitioner was served with a notice dated 24th September, 1962, (respondents' annexure 1), for submitting returns for the period from 21st October, 1960, to 8th November, 1961. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the returns were submitted beyond the prescribed date. Thereafter the petitioner went on filing applications before the assessing authority (respondent No. 1) for adjournment of the case sine die and for an opportunity to produce certain documents which had been seized from him by the Central excise authorities probably in connection with breach, of exchange regulations. The investigation in that behalf is said to be still incomplete despite a lapse of seven years after seizure. The seizure was effected on 28th September, 1963.
(3.)SO far as the applications made by the petitioner before the assessing authority are concerned, they were rather too vague. These applications, which are at pages 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of the paper book, make one uniform prayer for adjournment of the case sine die, complaining that the petitioner is unable to produce the necessary evidence because the books of accounts and other papers of the petitioner-firm are under the custody of the Central excise authorities. The learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed the impugned order on the premises that the petitioner had failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the exemptions claimed by it in the return. In this connection it is also pertinent to note that on a previous occasion the assessing authority had passed a similar order of best judgment assessment which had been set aside by the Board of Revenue by order dated 11th March, 1965 (petitioner's annexure 'a') in respect of an earlier period of assessment. But the Board of Revenue in that order had found it as a fact that the petitioner's account books and other documents had been seized by the Central excise authorities and hence he was unable to furnish the necessary evidence before the assessing authority. Therefore, on that occasion the Board of Revenue gave a direction to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order of assessment after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to produce the necessary evidence. But it appears that the assessing authority purported to pass the order of best judgment assessment on the wrong premises that the petitioner was unable to furnish any proof in respect of the exemptions claimed by him. In the return filed in this Court also a similar vague assertion has been made. But the fact is not disputed that the account books and other documents relating to the assessment period are still under the custody of the Central excise authorities and, therefore, the petitioner cannot produce them without the assistance of the assessing authority.


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