1973 (8) TMI 148 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax on turnover of bricks sold during specific assessment years.
2. Allegation of partnership between petitioner and another individual.
3. Lack of notice and opportunity to present case during assessment proceedings.
4. Issuance of recovery certificate against petitioner without proper jurisdiction.
5. Validity of assessment orders and recovery proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the assessment of sales tax on the turnover of bricks sold during the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The assessment orders were passed against an individual, Sheo Prasad Rai, based on best judgment due to the absence of proper accounts. Later, it was claimed that the petitioner was also a partner with Sheo Prasad Rai, leading to a finding by the Sales Tax Officer that the petitioner was a partner for the assessment year 1966-67. No notice was given to the petitioner before this finding was recorded, and recovery proceedings were initiated against both individuals without proper notification to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner denied being a partner with Sheo Prasad Rai and explained that a partnership deed was executed for a different business venture that did not materialize. The business assessed for tax was not related to the petitioner, and he was not involved in it. The lack of notice during assessment proceedings prevented the petitioner from presenting his case before the Sales Tax Officer. The court noted that the assessment order for 1966-67, including the finding of partnership, was void due to a violation of natural justice principles.

3. The court emphasized the importance of including the status of the assessee in assessment orders and recommended amending the form of return to specify the status, such as individual, firm, Hindu undivided family, etc. Proper inquiry and notice should be given in case of doubt or dispute regarding the status of an assessee to avoid situations like the one in the present case.

4. The assessment orders for the years 1962-63 to 1965-66 were made against Sheo Prasad Rai without considering the petitioner as a partner. As a result, the recovery certificate issued against both individuals was deemed unauthorized and without jurisdiction since the petitioner was not an assessee. The court declared the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for those years as invalid.

5. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the assessment order for 1966-67, and invalidated the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The court highlighted the lack of sustainability in the finding of partnership without notice to the petitioner and emphasized the unauthorized nature of the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded costs, and a suggestion for amending the form of return was forwarded to the State Government for consideration.