1980 (1) TMI 191 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority.
2. Vagueness of the impugned notices.
3. Possession of definite information by the Assessing Authority.
4. Legality of requiring the petitioner to appear outside the jurisdiction.
5. Short adjournments and non-supply of certified copies of statements.
6. Alleged bias of the Assessing Authority.
7. Validity of deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
8. Scope of section 11-A of the Act.
9. Consequences of purchasing dealers denying purchases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner contended that the notices were issued by Shri K.K. Hans, who had no jurisdiction after the case was transferred to Shri Gurbachan Singh. However, the court noted that the petitioner itself admitted in a letter that Shri K.K. Hans had jurisdiction. Respondent No. 2 clarified that the reassessment was initiated by him after the transfer of records, confirming his jurisdiction.

2. Vagueness of the Impugned Notices:
The petitioner argued that the notices were vague as they did not specify grounds for reopening the assessment. The court found this contention without merit, noting that the notices clearly mentioned that deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) were found to be ungenuine/fictitious.

3. Possession of Definite Information:
The petitioner claimed there was no definite information with the Assessing Authority at the time of issuing the notices. The court held that this was a factual question to be determined by the Assessing Authority based on evidence, and the petitioner should have contested this before the authority rather than presuming lack of information.

4. Legality of Requiring Appearance Outside Jurisdiction:
The petitioner contended that requiring it to appear at Gurdaspur was illegal. The court found no merit in this contention, as the petitioner failed to substantiate it with any rule or statutory provision.

5. Short Adjournments and Non-supply of Certified Copies:
The petitioner argued that short adjournments were given and certified copies of statements were not provided. The court held that even if true, these issues did not affect the legality and validity of the notices.

6. Alleged Bias of the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner alleged bias as respondent No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. against one of its partners. The court found this irrelevant to the legality of the notices, noting that the F.I.R. was related to the theft of documents and did not indicate personal bias.

7. Validity of Deductions under Section 5(2)(a)(ii):
The petitioner argued that the original assessments, which accepted the S.T. XXII forms, should be final. The court held that these assessments were valid until the Assessing Authority received definite information suggesting under-assessment or escaped assessment, allowing reassessment.

8. Scope of Section 11-A of the Act:
The primary contention was that section 11-A did not allow reopening assessments to check previously allowed deductions. The court disagreed, explaining that section 11-A covers both escaped turnover and under-assessed turnover, including reassessment based on new information indicating incorrect deductions.

9. Consequences of Purchasing Dealers Denying Purchases:
The petitioner argued that if purchasing dealers denied purchases, there was no turnover to reassess. The court distinguished this case from previous rulings, noting that the petitioner was given an opportunity to rebut the dealers' statements but chose not to cooperate. The court emphasized that non-cooperation would lead to ex parte proceedings, and the petitioner could not later claim unfair treatment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The request for a certificate of fitness for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court was also declined.

← Previous Next →