1986 (2) TMI 319 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment proceedings under local and Central Sales Tax Acts for financial years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
2. Dismissal of appeals by Assistant Commissioner for non-payment of admitted tax.
3. Orders of remand by Deputy Commissioner and subsequent revision by Financial Commissioner.
4. Questions of law referred to the Court by Financial Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment involved assessment proceedings under the local and Central Sales Tax Acts for the financial years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The firm, M/s. Bharat Electrical Equipment Corporation, failed to file returns for certain quarters and faced ex parte assessment orders under both Acts. Appeals were filed against these orders, but the Assistant Commissioner dismissed them for non-payment of admitted tax. The proviso to section 20(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 required payment of admitted tax for entertaining appeals. The firm then filed petitions for revision before the Deputy Commissioner, arguing that since the firm had been dissolved, no assessment could be made against it. The Deputy Commissioner remanded the cases for detailed inquiries into the dissolution plea.

Subsequently, the Financial Commissioner set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order of remand based on the case of Ranjit Singh v. Assessing Authority. The Financial Commissioner held that further inquiry into the dissolution was unnecessary. The firm then filed petitions for revision before the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the appeals. The Court was asked two questions of law regarding the Financial Commissioner's actions. The Court decided that the Financial Commissioner erred in setting aside the remand orders and that the second question was misconceived. The Court clarified that the issue of non-payment of admitted tax was raised at earlier stages and declined to answer the second question.

In conclusion, the Court answered the questions accordingly, holding the Financial Commissioner's view unjustified in setting aside the remand orders. The Court also clarified that the issue of non-payment of admitted tax had been raised at earlier stages, contrary to the Financial Commissioner's assertion. The Court awarded costs to the Commissioner of Sales Tax and upheld the decisions made in the case.