9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Sales Tax Officer and a huge quantity of unstamped cloths were seized. It may be mentioned that the Cloth Control Order was in operation at the time. Proceedings for assessment under section 13(4) of the Act were instituted and after a number of adjournments, the assessee produced certain books like rokar, ledger etc. For reasons recorded in the orders (Exhibits A, A1 and A2) the Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts produced as undependable mainly on account of the discre- pancies between the books seized and the books produced. From certain enquiries made, it was found that the assessee had remitted, on different dates, from 1948 to 1949 over 4.25 lakhs of rupees through Imperial Bank drafts, and the Sales Tax Officer came to the finding that the cash book filed by the assessee did not contain a correct record of his transactions. The approximate value of the un-stamped cloths seized was over a lakh of rupees and the Sales Tax Officer came to the finding that the assessee had been carrying on extensive business in unstamped cloth but had not shown sales of any such cloth in his books of account. The assessee moved the Commissioner of the Chota Nagpur Division, in appeal ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts found do constitute sufficient cause in law for not filing the appeal within 45 days from 7th February, 1950. The Board after hearing the parties rejected the petitions for the reasons recorded in its order (Exhibit G). On being moved by the assessee, the Honourable High Court has been pleased to call for a statement of the case on the following point: "Whether the notice under sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, has been served in accordance with the provisions of rule 44 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, and whether in the circumstances of the case the appeals were time-barred". The history of the detection, as set forth in the assessment order, shows that the assessee appeared on a number of occasions before the Sales Tax Officer and produced accounts even though after considerable delay. Curiously enough, during the later stages of the proceedings be- fore the Sales Tax Officer, he evaded appearance before him even though the Sales Tax Officer wanted him to give an opportunity to give further explanation about his accounts and even though he appear- ed before the Sub-Divisional Officer at Dhanbad in connection with the prosecution under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of the facts stated above, the learned Com- missioner came to the only possible conclusion that the assessee had all along been fully aware of the progress of the proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer, that the difficulty in the service of the notice, if any, had been caused by him owing to the wrong address given by him and that the petitions were time-barred. For exhaustive reasons recorded, the then Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, also upheld the views of the learned Commissioner and this view was confirmed by him in reject- ing the petitions for reference. In the circumstance set forth above, the Board can only reiterate its views. This statement is, however, being submitted as required by the High Court. U.N. Sinha and S.B. Sanyal, for the petitioner. The Government Pleader, for the opposite party. JUDGMENT RAMASWAMI and RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.- In M.J.C. 400 of 1951, the assessment of sales tax is for the period from the 26th November, 1948, to the 31st December, 1948. In M.J.C. 403 of 1951, the period of assessment is from 1st January, 1949, to 31st March, 1949, and in M.J.C. 399 of 1951, the assessment is for the period from the 1st April, 1949 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that there was no valid ser- vice of notice issued under section 14 (4) upon the assessee and, there- fore, the appeals presented on behalf of the assessee on the 7th of April, 1950, were not barred by limitation. In this connection, it is necessary to examine the provisions of section 24(1) and (2) which state: "(1) Any dealer objecting to an order of assessment, with or with- out penalty, under section 13, or to an order passed under sub-section (3) of section 12 or under section 24A may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority against such assessment or penalty or both: Provided that no appeal shall be entertained by the said authority unless he is satisfied that twenty per centum of the tax assess- ed or such amount of the tax as the appellant may admit to be due from him, whichever is greater, has been paid. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be presented within forty-five days of receipt of the notice issued under sub-section (4) of section 14, but the authority before whom the appeal is filed may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original notice. When the notice is served by affixing a copy there- of in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (1), the serving officer shall return the original to the Sales Tax Authority which issued the notice with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the person, if any, by whom the addressee's office or the building in which his office is or was located or his place of business or residence was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. The serving officer shall also require the signature or thumb impression of the person identifying the addressee's office or building or place of business or residence to his report. " The argument on behalf of the assessee is that the peon did not obtain the order of the Sales Tax Authority before affixing a copy of the notice on the premises of the pleader, Mr. Gauripati Mazumdar, or in the shop of the assessee. The contention of learned counsel is that there was no valid service of notice, because the pleader, Mr. Gauripati Mazumdar, did not acknowledge the service by making an endorsement on the back of the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
