S.P.Talukdar, J. - (1.) The petitioner viz. Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. Filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "The Tribunal". It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was carrying on business of manufacturing various types of papers at its paper mill situated at village Raninagar, Chakdah, Dist. Nadia. It had challenged the notice under section 11E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, for reopening of deemed assessment for the period from 1st January, 1989 to 31st March, 1989. Petitioner also filed three separate applications being registered as RN-204, RN-205 and RN-206 of 1999 apart from RN-203 of 1999 challenging respective notices in each case under section 9A(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. All the four cases, as referred to, arose out of the similar set of circumstances though related to different periods. The Tribunal heard all the said four cases analogously and by the impugned judgment dated 27th july, 2001, dismissed the same.
(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant application. The grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be capsulated in a few sentences as follows:
(3.) The petitioner filed necessary return within the due period in question under 1941 Act and paid the taxes on the basis of the said return and the same was under section 11E(1) of the 1941 Act which was treated as correct and complete. The assessment for the said period was deemed to have been made under section 11E(1) of the 1941 Act by operation of law. Strangely enough, the petitioner received notice dated 24th June, 1999 from Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Corporate Division in the afternoon of the said date. The petitioner was thus directed to show cause under section 11E(2) of the 1941 Act against proposal for reopening the deemed assessment as according to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed incorrect statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales in the return submitted. Petitioner sought to assail the notice on the ground that it contained no factual basis for arriving at a conclusion that there had been any incorrect statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales. It was also challenged on the ground that 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice for showing cause had not been given. Such notices under section 9A(2) of the Act of 1954 read with Rule 22AA of the Rules of 1954 were thus sought to be quashed.;