AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing steel trunk. The accounting period of the petitioner runs from 1st day of April to 31st day of March. The petitioner started its business on 1st May 1959.
(2.) THE gross turnover of the petitioner exceeded the taxable quantum of Rs. 10,000 on 20th August, 1970. The petitioner applied for registration under section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in the year 1974. The registration was granted to the petitioner on 20th September, 1974. The respondent No. 1, Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, held that the gross turnover of the petitioner exceeded the taxable quantum of Rs. 10,000 on 20th August, 1970, and therefore the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 4 (2) of the Act with effect from 20th October, 1970. A proceeding thereafter was initiated under section 11 (2) of the Act and a notice in form VI was issued on 7th October, 1974, directing the petitioner to produce all the books of accounts and other relevant evidence for the period from 20th October, 1970, to 19th September, 1974, in respect of the assessment for pre-registration period. The petitioner complied with said requisition. The petitioner took an objection before the Commercial Tax Officer that no consolidated assessment for the period from 20th October, 1970, to 19th September, 1974, could be made by the Commercial Tax Officer as the statute does not provide for such composite assessment for several years. Even then the commercial Tax Officer completed the assessment for the entire period from 20th October, 1970, to 19th September, 1974, and imposed tax on the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 5,551. 10 in respect of the tax for the period from 20th October, 1980, to 19th September, 1974. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dharamtala Circle, respondent No. 2, accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the assessment was a nullity. He held that the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer could not be upheld and the assessment was annulled. Thereafter no further proceedings had been initiated by the respondents.;