1965 (4) TMI 101 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of best judgment assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Consideration of alternative remedies like appeal and revision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of best judgment assessment
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, failed to produce books and papers in support of the return for the year 1366 B.S. Consequently, the Commercial Tax Officer conducted a summary assessment, estimating the gross turnover and taxable turnover. The petitioner challenged this best judgment assessment, arguing it was made on extraneous and irrelevant materials. The Court, citing legal principles, emphasized that the assessing officer must not act dishonestly or arbitrarily but must make a fair estimate based on available evidence. Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted the necessity for an honest guess in such assessments. The Court found the petitioner's criticism of the assessment order justified, concluding that it failed to meet the standards of best judgment assessment.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order. The Court acknowledged the availability of alternative remedies like appeal and revision but exercised discretion in favor of the petitioner due to the unsatisfactory nature of the assessment order. The Government Pleader argued against interference, contending that the petitioner's non-cooperation should preclude challenging the best judgment assessment. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that assessing authorities must adhere to legal requirements in making such assessments. Ultimately, the Court quashed the best judgment assessment and directed a fresh assessment according to law.

Issue 3: Consideration of alternative remedies
The Government Pleader highlighted the petitioner's failure to pursue appeal or revision as a reason to deny relief under Article 226. The Court acknowledged the existence of alternative remedies but clarified that the availability of such remedies does not restrict the Court's jurisdiction. In this case, the Court decided to intervene due to the deficiencies in the assessment order, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards. As a result, the Court quashed the assessment and remitted the case for a lawful reassessment.

In conclusion, the High Court, in a detailed analysis, invalidated the best judgment assessment due to procedural deficiencies and directed a fresh assessment while upholding the petitioner's right to seek relief under Article 226 despite the availability of alternative remedies.