Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this rule, an existing private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a registered dealer since 1963 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture and sale of chalk, pencils, ink, leather preservatives, plastic covers, etc. The petitioner at the time of making the application was assessed since 1963-64 till 1966-67, exclusive of the assessment year 1965-66 and taxes due had been duly paid. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, the returns were also duly filed and by notice dated 16th April, 1968, the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanipore Charge (hereinafter referred to as the C. T. O.), called upon the petitioner to appear with relevant records on 18th July, 1968, failing which, it was stated, the assessment would be made ex parte. The petitioner by its letter of 15th July, 1968, asked for an adjournment of hearing on the ground that the relevant account books were spoilt by heavy monsoon and they were to be reconstructed. The said letter was received on 15th July, 1968, but the C. T. O., however, wrongfully and mala fide refused to grant the adjournment and made a "best judgment" assessment on the day fixed. It was stated in the order: Having regard to the nature of business I estimate the dealer's gross turnover at Rs. 50,000. I further estimate inter-State turnover at Rs. 30,000. Hence the taxable sale of the dealer is assessed at Rs. 20,000.
(2.) Allowing a deduction, the taxable turnover under the Bengal Act was determined at Rs. 19,050 and the tax thereon was assessed at Rs. 952.50. Under the Central Sales Tax Act, the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 30,000 and tax payable was assessed at Rs. 3,000. Forms VII and 4 respectively under the two Acts were directed to be issued accordingly. The petitioner received on 1st August, 1968, two notices of assessment under the two Acts. The petitioner contends that the said assessment was made arbitrarily without reference to evidence on record and against the principle of justice, as assessments of prior and subsequent years were not taken into consideration.
(3.) The petitioner set out a statement of taxable sales and assessment figures as follows: JUDGEMENT_546_STC34_1974Html1.htm;