2000 (6) TMI 781 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of notice in form IX under rule 79 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, reopening of deemed assessment, revisional order based on short payment turnover tax (TOT) and non-payment of interest.

Analysis:
1. The applicant challenged the validity of the notice and orders regarding the reopening of deemed assessment. The notice was issued in the trade name of the business, which was a partnership firm at the time. The respondents defended the orders by stating that the firm furnished incorrect particulars of sales, justifying the reopening.

2. The validity of the notice was questioned due to its issuance in the name of the defunct partnership firm. The State Representative defended the notice, stating that the liability of the firm extends to individual partners. The notice was found valid as it was served on one of the partners.

3. The applicant pointed out discrepancies in the notice being issued under rule 79 instead of section 11E(2). However, since the applicant was aware of the deemed assessment and participated in the proceedings, the mention of rule 79 did not invalidate the process.

4. The notice mentioned grounds for reopening as "Short levy TOT and non-payment of interest," which lacked specificity regarding the proposed order of reopening. Despite this, the applicant participated in the proceedings and was not prejudiced by the non-specific notice.

5. The issue of whether section 11E(2) allows reopening for short payment of TOT and interest was analyzed. The Deputy Commissioner's order lacked grounds for reopening based on concealment or incorrect statements, making the reopening unjustified.

6. The State Representative argued for permitting reopening based on unpaid TOT and interest, but the Tribunal emphasized that section 11E(2) does not explicitly include these grounds for reopening deemed assessments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application in part, setting aside the orders for reopening the deemed assessment and the revisional order. No costs were awarded in this matter.