- (1.) THIS matter along with RN -94 of 2001, RN -95 of 2001 and RN -96 of 2001 have been heard together in detail on the last date of hearing, i.e., January 9, 2002. It was then felt necessary that the case of the petitioner hinges on whether the notices regarding initiation of reassessment proceedings were served on the applicant or not. Learned State Representative was requested to inform, after enquiry, whether the respondents can rightly claim that the notices were properly served. Mr. Debanjan Gangopadhay, State Representative, informs us today that the officer concerned, respondent No. 1, Sri Sandeep Saha is present at court today and Mr. Gangopadhay also submits on instruction that the respondents possess nothing to show convincingly that the notices were served.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the notice dated July 27, 2000 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bowbazar Charge, wanting to make a fresh assessment under Section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 relating to the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1992 on the ground that no show cause notice for reopening has been served and thus the order of reopening is in violation of Rule 54AA of the 1941 Rules. The other ground for the challenge is that the order is barred by time. It may be mentioned that subsequent to the filing of this application ex parte reassessment already has been made and that reassessment has also been challenged by filing supplementary affidavit. Subject -matters of RN -94 of 2001, RN -95 of 2001 and RN -96 of 2001 are same ; only difference is that RN -94 of 2001 relates to assessment of four quarters ending March, 1991 and RN -95 of 2001 relates to assessment of four quarters ending March, 1990 and RN -96 of 2001 relates to four quarters ending March, 1989. The ground for reopening of deemed assessment has been mentioned in Section 11E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the procedure that has to be followed is enjoined in Rule 54AA(2) of the 1941 Rules. The appropriate authority is empowered to reopen the assessment within a period of six years from the date of assessment if the dealer is found to have concealed his sales or furnished incorrect statement of his turnover or incorrect particulars of his sales in any return submitted by him relating to the four quarters, in question. He can do so only after issuing a show cause notice upon the dealer, fixing a date not less than 15 days from the date of service of the notice, why the deemed assessment shall not be reopened for the reason set out in the notice and why a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall not be made against the dealer. We find that in this case the petitioner has taken the stand that no such show cause notice was served on him. The respondent -authorities also failed to show from their record issuance of any such show cause notice from their end. In the affidavit -in -opposition also, such a statement finds place. That being the case, there has been failure to comply with the mandatory provision of the Act and the Rules of 1941 Act. So not only the notice dated July 27, 2000 but also the subsequent assessment order require to be set aside and those are set aside. In view of the same, we do not like to enter into the other point. The application succeeds. The notice dated July 27, 2000 wanting to make fresh assessment and subsequent order dated February 8, 2001 of reassessment passed by respondent No. 1, are set aside. The case is thus disposed of without any order for costs.
(3.) THIS order governs also case Nos. RN -94 of 2001, RN -95 of 2001 and RN -96 of 2001.;