9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Officer on 7th December, 1948. A number of account books and other papers were seized. In spit of opportunities being given to the petitioner he failed to produce his account books and the learned Sales Tax Officer was obliged to assess him on the best judgment method. Assessment orders dated 24th June, 1948, in each case are enclosed: Exhibits A A1. The learned Sales Tax Officer assessed the petitioner to pay tax of Rs. 2,756-4-0 with a penalty of Rs. 4,134-6-0 each year. The assessee then moved the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, in appeal. Appeal petitions dated 24th August, 1948, are enclosed: Exhibits B B1. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reduced the gross turnover to Rs. 1 lakh in each case and rejected the appeals on other grounds by his order dated 30th January, 1950, enclosed Exhibit C. The assessee then came up in revision before the Board of Revenue by petitions filed on 26th September, 1950. Revision petitions before the Board are enclosed: Exhibits D D1. The Board after hearing the parties rejected the two petitions. Board's order dated 10th July, 1951, is enclosed: Exhibit E. The assessee being aggrieved at the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th June, 1946, was not barred. The Sales Tax Officer passed his order on the 22nd June, 1948. Under the 1944 Act (section 10 proviso) no order assessing the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of any period shall be passed later than 24 months from the expiry of such period. The order of assessment is within 24 months of the expiry of the period ending on the 30th June, 1946. If the assessment order had been passed sometime in July, 1948, then the period ending the 30th June, 1946, would not have been assessed. But as the assessment was made prior to the 30th June, 1948 it has to be held that the sales made during the period ending the 30th June, 1946, were assessable up to the 30th June, 1948. Thus it would appear that the assessment of tax upon the petitioner for the period from the 1st April, 1946, to the 31st March, 1947, is not barred by limitation. As desired by the Honourable High Court, the Board refers the following questions of law for the decision by the Court: "(1) Whether in the circumstances of this case the assessment of tax upon the petitioner under section 10(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, is legal? (2) Whether the imposition of penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e No. 412 of 1952 the assessment of sales tax is for the period from the 1st of April, 1947, to the 31st of March, 1948. It is said that the petitioner Mirzamul Prabhu Dayal was carrying on a large business at Barh and that the business was not registered under section 7 of the 1944 Act. An officer of the Sales Tax Department made a surprise visit to the petitioner's shop at Barh on the 7th of February, 1948, and seized a number of account books and other papers. In spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner all the relevant account books were not produced and so the Sales Tax Officer made an assessment to the best of his judgment for both the assessment periods in question. A penalty under section 10(5) was imposed upon the petitioner in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 411 of 1952 and a penalty was imposed under the corresponding section of the 1947 Act upon the petitioner in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 412 of 1952. As directed by the High Court, the Board of Revenue has stated a case upon the following questions of law in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 411 of 1952: "1. Whether in the circumstances of this case the assessment of tax upon the petitioner under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dealer carrying on both the businesses within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. Under this section, a "dealer" means "any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in Bihar whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or a Hindu joint family and any society, club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members". It is not contended by the petitioner in this case that there are two different partnerships under the Partnership Act, carrying on the business at Jamui and at Barh. On the contrary, it is admitted that the businesses at Jamui and Barh were Hindu family businesses and that the owner of both the businesses was the same Hindu joint family consisting of Mirzamul and his two sons Prabhu Dayal and Ram, Pratap. We are, therefore, satisfied that the dealer of the Jamui business is identical with the dealer of the Barh business and the assessment under section 10(5) has been validly made upon the petitioner in this case. It was then argued that the provisions of section 10(5) would not be applicable because the firm at Jamui had been registered in the name of Mirzamul Ram Pratap and the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount so assessed, a sum not exceeding one and half times that amount." It is clear upon the facts stated in this case that the Hindu joint family was liable to pay tax with regard to the business carried on at Barh and had nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for registration of that branch of the business at Barh. It follows, therefore, that the assessment has been made properly by the Sales Tax Authorities upon the petitioner under section 10(5) of the 1944 Act. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the business at Barh was started on the 1st of April, 1946, and so the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax for the period from the 1st of April, 1946, to the 31st of March, 1947. Reliance was placed in this connection upon the provisions of section 4(2) which is in the following terms: "4. (2) Every dealer to whom sub-section (1) does not apply shall be liable to pay tax under this Act with effect from three months after the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5,000." Section 4(1) is in the following terms: "4. Incidence of taxatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
