9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (7) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the following clause, which ought to have been deleted, viz., "You are hereby directed to show cause as to why you should not be assessed to tax in respect of the period 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1954, under sub-section (6) of section 14 of the Act and why penalty under sub-section (7) of section 14 of the said Act should not be imposed upon you and to produce such evidence as you wish." It was contended that the notice was bad for three reasons, viz., (a) that it mentioned sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14, (b) that two periods for which separate assessments had to be made were included in it, and (c) that the notice which was served on 21st February, 1955, gave the date of appearance and production of accounts as 3rd March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 14 of the Act? Out of these, Mr. Buch for the applicants has agreed that questions numbers 4, 5 and 7 may be dropped. In our opinion the remaining questions can be formulated as follows: (1) Whether the notice in this case was bad because it mentioned sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14 of the Act? (2) Whether the notice was bad because it included two periods for which separate assessments had to be made under the law? (3) Whether the notice was bad because the period of notice was too short in view of the requirement of rule 16 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954? (4) Whether, if the notice was bad, the assessment based thereon should be set aside? We think the above questions are reasonably arguable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was invalid. There is no dispute that the assessees had submitted their returns for the material periods. Thereafter by the notice, dated 17th January, 1955, the assessees were informed that the Sales Tax Officer desired to satisfy himself that the returns furnished by them in respect of the period 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1954, were correct and complete and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer directed them to attend in person or by an agent authorised in writing at the address mentioned in the notice at 11 a.m. on 3rd February, 1955, and to produce any evidence on which they relied in support of their returns. The assessees were also required at the same time to produce or cause to be produced their books of account for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om a registered dealer shall be assessed separately for each year during which he is liable to pay the tax. But the mere fact that the assessment has to be in respect of a period of one year does not support the view that the notice issued under sub-section (3) must also be restricted to a period of one year. The second contention also, in our judgment, has no force. It is true that in the notice, which is on a printed form in which some of the blanks are filled in, there is a reference to clauses (6) and (7) of section 14. But from the terms of the notice there can be no doubt that the notice was one which was intended to be issued by the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3). We do not think that failure to st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
