1963 (9) TMI 48 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice in Form VI.
2. Transfer of jurisdiction to the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section.
3. Waiver of jurisdictional objections.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice in Form VI:
Mr. Roy argued that the notice in Form VI issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Amratolla Charge, was invalid as it ignored the return filed by the petitioners for the quarter ending Baisak Bodi 14, 2017 S.Y. The court held that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay taxes are not conditional on the validity of the notice in Form VI. The liability to pay sales tax is founded upon sections 4 and 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, which are the charging sections. Section 11, read with rule 49, merely lays down the procedure of assessment. An assessment made without service of notice in Form VI or on the basis of an irregular or incomplete notice may be an irregularity but does not touch the jurisdiction to assess. The court found that the petitioners suffered no prejudice because of the defect in the notice as the original order of assessment was set aside in appeal, and the fresh assessment was conducted with the petitioners' participation.

2. Transfer of jurisdiction to the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section:
Mr. Roy contended that the transfer of all matters relating to the petitioners to the Central Section was bad. The court noted that the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Act, 1962, provided for the transfer of cases or matters to the Central Section and gave retrospective operation to the amendments. The court found that the Central Section had jurisdiction over the whole of West Bengal, as per the Notification No. 13-F.T., dated 23rd August, 1947. The Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, had concurrent jurisdiction with the Commercial Tax Officer, Amratolla Charge, to assess the petitioners. The court also noted an order of transfer made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which further validated the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section.

3. Waiver of jurisdictional objections:
The court observed that the petitioners, through their conduct, had waived objections to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section. The petitioners' pleader appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, and the date of assessment was fixed in his presence. The petitioners also sought adjournments to produce their account books, indicating their intention to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their returns. The court held that this conduct was sufficient to indicate that the petitioners had substantially waived the irregularity in the notice.

4. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
Mr. Roy argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioners were not given sufficient time to produce their account books. The court found that the date of hearing was fixed on 22nd January, 1962, and upon the petitioners' request, the hearing was adjourned to 25th January, 1962. On the date fixed, nobody appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer, but one of the petitioners appeared five days later on 30th January, 1962, seeking further adjournment, which was not granted. The court held that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to produce their books of account and that no principle of natural justice was violated.

Conclusion:
All the arguments advanced by Mr. Roy were overruled. The court discharged the rule with costs, assessing the hearing fee at 5 G.Ms. The rule was discharged.