1954 (7) TMI 16 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sales Tax Officer's order dated 12th June, 1953.
2. Binding nature of the Commissioner's order dated 28th April, 1952.
3. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to issue notices and assess the petitioner.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act.
5. Effect of the High Court's order dated 25th February, 1953.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sales Tax Officer's order dated 12th June, 1953:
The Sales Tax Officer issued notices requiring the petitioner to submit returns and produce account books for various periods. The petitioner contended that this order was invalid, particularly because it contradicted the earlier order of the Commissioner and the High Court's decision. The court found that the notices for periods prior to 30th June, 1952, were contrary to law as they were issued beyond the permissible time limit. Additionally, the notice in Form No. XII was deemed invalid for not specifying the period of the proposed assessment.

2. Binding nature of the Commissioner's order dated 28th April, 1952:
The Commissioner had determined that the petitioner was not a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. The court held that this determination was binding on the Sales Tax Officer, who could not ignore it without new evidence. The Sales Tax Officer's action of issuing fresh notices despite the Commissioner's order was found to be unjustified.

3. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to issue notices and assess the petitioner:
The Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction was challenged on the grounds that the Commissioner's order was binding and no new facts had emerged to warrant a different conclusion. The court found that the Sales Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue notices for periods prior to 30th June, 1952, without a valid basis for reassessment. The court also noted that the Sales Tax Officer's reliance on a report from the Sales Tax Inspector was misplaced as it predated the examination of the petitioner's books.

4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act:
The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements, particularly the issuance of notices within the stipulated time frames. The Sales Tax Officer's failure to adhere to these requirements rendered the notices invalid. The court also highlighted the need for the Sales Tax Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before proceeding with the assessment.

5. Effect of the High Court's order dated 25th February, 1953:
The High Court had previously noted the Additional Government Pleader's statement that the petitioner's grievances had been addressed, leading to the withdrawal of the earlier notice. The court held that this statement was binding and precluded the Sales Tax Officer from issuing fresh notices for the same periods. The court criticized the authorities for not adhering to the representations made to the court and deemed their actions an abuse of the court's process.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the order dated 12th June, 1953, along with the notices issued under Forms No. VI and XII, were quashed. The court awarded costs to the petitioner and ordered the refund of the deposit amount.