SUDHIR CH MUKHERJEE Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-1-13
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 20,1976

SUDHIR CH. MUKHERJEE Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NORTH BENGAL STORES LTD. V. BOARD OF REVENUE,BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NILGIRI HILL TEA SUPPLY CO. V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA V. V. C. VERUKUTTI [REFERRED TO]
DEBIDAS GOPAL KRISHNA V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX V. DR. SRIK DEO [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHANI SAHA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SURAJMAL JAIN V COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
PARESH NATH CLOTH STORES V. N. PAL [REFERRED TO]
EASTERN DRUG COMPANY LTD. V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED VS. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED :GANESH FLOUR MILLS CO LIMITED DELHI:MODI SUGAR MILLS:DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED BOMBAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE VS. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE [REFERRED TO]
DURGASREE STORES VS. BOARD OF REVENUE WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. JAGAL KISHORE BADRIPRASAD [LAWS(MPH)-1978-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
ALLIED MARKETING AGENCIES VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-221] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENCY KID LEAR PVT LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BALLYGUNGE CHARGE [LAWS(CAL)-1989-6-21] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This rule is directed against an order of revision passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, West Bengal confirming the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, and the order for assessment of the Commercial Tax Officer, Taltolla Charge.
(2.)The petitioner and his brother Probhat Chandra Mukherjee had been carrying on the business of florist under the name and style of S.C. Mukherjee & Sons a partnership concern. The petitioner used to grow flowers and also to purchase flowers from the markets and re-sale the same also garlands and bouquets by making them according to the taste and desire of the customers. The petitioner's turnover never exceeded the taxable quantum and as such he did not get the firm registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner was not an importer nor a manufacturer. The petitioner, it was stated, maintained a Tokcha Khata wherein daily purchase and sale of goods were kept in normal course of business.
(3.)In pursuance of a notice under S.14 of the said Act the petitioner produced his books of accounts before the Commercial Tax Officer, Taltola Charge who fixed his liability under S. 4(2) of the said Act and completed assessments under S. 11(2) of the Act for 1360 B.S. The said order fixing the date of liability and the order of assessment on its basis were however set aside on appeal with direction to make the assessment afresh after determining the date of liability. The Commercial Tax Officer, again determined the liability on and from Aghran, 1361 B.S. and these assessments were again set aside on appeal and the Commercial Tax Officer was directed to make their assessment after fixing the date of commencement of liability. On October 4, 1963, the Commercial Tax Officer determined the liability of the petitioner to pay tax on and from 30th Jaistha, 1363 B.S. Thereafter three assessments were made for the years 30th Jaistha, 1363 B.S.; to 31st Chaitra 1365 B.S. In making the assessments the Jabeda Khata (Tikcha book) produced by the petitioner was rejected and assessments had made on estimating the turnover without recording any reason for or basis of such estimate. The appeal case Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 1964-65 filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Calcutta (South) Circle were dismissed on the grounds that the order determining liability being not challenged in revision could not be questioned in the appeal and that the estimates of turnover as made were reasonable and the orders of assessment could not be interfered with. Revision case Nos.312, 313 and 314 of 1965-66 filed against the said order were also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, West Bengal who held that the petitioner was a manufacturer and the assessments made on estimating the turnover were reasonable and proper. The orders of assessments were affirmed.
;


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