9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara (respondent 2). 3.. The Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara, assessed the amount of sales tax due from the petitioner for the periods 22nd October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950, and 10th November, 1950, to 30th October, 1951, on 30th September, 1953, and 4th November, 1953, respectively. Thereafter, on 5th June, 1954, he seized the petitioner's account books for sambat years 2007 and 2008. On 8th and 9th January, 1957, he seized the account books of the petitioner for the sambat year 2009 and also those for the years 1953-54 to 1956-57. 4.. By two orders, each dated 15th December, 1954, the Commissioner of Sales Tax revised the assessment orders of the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara, dated 30th September, 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross-examine them and even certified copies of statements of those witnesses were not made available to him. Further, apart from want of inherent jurisdiction, the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara, was not empowered to seize account books and the action taken by him in the matter was illegal, besides being in contravention of rule 51 framed under the Act. Finally, the order for reassessment for the year 1949-50, purporting to have been passed under sections 11-A and 22-C of the Act, was without jurisdiction and illegal because it was passed in a proceeding started on the issue of a notice more than three years after the period of assessment ending on 9th November, 1950. 7.. The respondents contested all the grounds on which the petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it is prejudicial to the revenue, he may revise it. It would appear that, under this section, the Commissioner is empowered to act if, after examining the record of any proceeding, he considers any order passed therein to be erroneous as being prejudicial to the revenue. The words used in the section do not postulate exercise of any power to revise an order of assessment on the basis of any information obtained aliunde and not contained in the record examined by the Commissioner. Even apart from this, section 11A of the Act specifically provides for assessment of the tax payable if, in consequence of any information, the Commissioner is satisfied that the turnover of a dealer during any period escaped assessment. In view of this special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jayantilal Nandlal of Pandhurna it was discovered that the dealer sold goods worth Rs. 2,260-15-0 to Jayantilal Nandlal of Pandhura, which were not included in the returns submitted by the dealer and assessment made on him for the above-noted period. The sales tax practitioner, who has appeared before me with the dealer, contends that the sales in question were duly shown in the return and are included in his accounts. He pleads that his accounts have been seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara, and, therefore, it is not possible for him to establish this fact. He has, however, no objection to the assessment being set aside and a fresh assessment being made after examining his books and returns for the above-noted period. All that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
