1991 (1) TMI 397 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of declaration at the revisional stage.
2. Granting of reasonable opportunity of being heard before assessment.
3. Determination of gross turnover and taxable sales under section 11(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

The case involved three questions referred to the High Court under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which were later transferred to the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal for disposal. The assessment of the applicant-firm was made ex parte by the Commercial Tax Officer, estimating the gross turnover higher than the admitted figure in the returns. The claim for deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was disallowed due to the absence of declaration forms. The Assistant Commissioner modified the assessment order, upholding the rejection of the adjournment request and disallowing the deduction claim. The applicant then appealed to the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal, which partially succeeded, leading to a reference under section 21(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the refusal to consider the declaration forms at the revisional stage was justified since they were not produced earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that evidence not presented during assessment should not be considered during revision unless valid reasons for the failure are shown. Therefore, the first question was answered in favor of the Revenue.

Regarding the second question on granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal noted that the Commercial Tax Officer had granted multiple adjournments but denied a verbal request on October 3, 1970. The Tribunal found no fault in the Officer's decision, as there was ample time for assessment completion, and no formal adjournment request was made by the applicant. Thus, the second question was also answered in favor of the Revenue.

The third question was not pursued by the applicant, leading to its dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the case without any cost orders. The judgment concluded with affirming the answers to questions one and two in favor of the Revenue, as the third question was not pursued by the applicant.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of evidence and formal adjournment requests during tax assessments to ensure fair proceedings.