COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. GANGA PRASAD JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the assessee is a registered dealer carrying on business in sugar, pulses, kirana goods and cotton. He submitted return of turnover for four quarters of 1953-54 to the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax, but he did not pay the admitted tax for the last three quarters at the time of submission of the return, and treasury receipts showing payment of the admitted tax were also not filed before the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax as required by Section 14(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax was not satisfied about the correctness of the return, and, therefore, issued notice upon the assessee under Section 13(2) of the statute. The dealer appeared in response to the notice, but he did not produce any stock book or any ledger account showing the total quantity and price of the various articles purchased and sold during the year. The Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax, therefore, made an assessment to the best of his judgment under Section 13(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. He also asked the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed for nonpayment of the sales tax for the previous three quarters. After hearing the assessee, the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax levied a penalty of Rs. 1,000 upon the assessee. The view taken by the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax was that the gross turnover of the assessee should be increased by 25 per cent, because the account books were not produced. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, who reduced the penalty to Rs. 500. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax also reduced the enhancement of the turnover from 25 per cent, to 10 per cent. He further observed that the penalty should be imposed not under Section 12(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, but under Section 14(3) of that Act and that the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax made a clerical mistake in saying that the penalty was imposed under Section 12(3) of the Act. The assessee took the matter in revision before the Board of Revenue which allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of assessment and also the order of imposition of penalty. The Board of Revenue observed that "while the failure to maintain a stock book of sugar might raise some suspicion and while the kata bahi produced before the Deputy Commissioner should have been produced much earlier and may have even been manipulated, in the absence of corroborative evidence to convert the suspicion into reasonable certainty, it would be unduly hard to reject the books of the petitioner as unreliable."

(2.) The Board further observed as follows :

(3.) As directed by the High Court the Board of Revenue has stated a case on the following questions of law : (1) Whether in the circumstances of this case the assessing officer was justified in making the assessment to the best of his judgment? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the penalty imposed for non-payment of the admitted tax was legally valid?