9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same at 5 per cent. In this way he created a demand of Rs. 9,000 as tax and in addition he imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000 for not getting the registration although found compulsorily liable. For the year 1968-69 also the sales were estimated at Rs. 1,80,000 and a demand of Rs. 9,000 created. For the year 1969-70 the assessing authority estimated the sales at Rs. 20,000 and created a demand of Rs. 1,000 2. The appeals against those assessment orders were dismissed by Shri H.I. Mittal, Asstt. Commissioner vide his impugned order. Aggrieved against the said orders, Shri Jai Paul Aggarwal has filed the present three appeals before me. The grounds on which the validity of appellate order is challenged are almost the same on which the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales in Delhi account were too small to merit any action under s.11(2). According to him the sales made at Simla, Dehradun etc. had no bearing upon sales in Delhi. The Sales Tax Inspector visited the shop on 10th April, 1962 and Shri Madan Lal, Manager, who was present there at the time of visit, told that the business was in partnership and every contract was in separate partnership. When the shop had been visited by the Inspector earlier on 20th January 1968,Shri Madan Lal had informed that the proprietor Shri J.P. Jain's office was at 174-Katra Baryan, Fatehpuri and his Telephone No. was 258841 Shri Madan Lal further told that Shri Jain had taken the quarters from C.P.W.D. after submission of tenders for demolishing the quarters and lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Tax Inspector had mentioned that the business was in partnership, it should have prompted the assessing authority to set on search about the constitution of the partnership. According to the appellant, he took only two contracts in Delhi. 8. As stated earlier, the notices under s.11(2) in form S.T. XIV were issued to M/s. Aggarwal Co. and not to Shri J.P. Aggarwal, and as such, it is doubtful if the assessment orders could be passed against Shri J.P. Aggarwal. Under s.11(2) r/w r. 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, it is incumbant to issue the notice to the dealer against whom proceedings under that section are intended to be started. In the absence of such notice, the assessment cannot be said to be valid. 9. As regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
