9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entire turnover and to produce its account books. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was required to furnish a list specifying the several purchases of liquid gold from two concerns, M/s. Madan Mohan Dammamal (Private) Ltd., and M/s. Kunjilal Hardayal, both of Firozabad. The list was furnished by the petitioner. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was also informed by the Sales Tax Officer that the assessment on escaped turnover was proposed under the Central Sales Tax Act and not under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Despite this information, the petitioner wrote on 8th April, 1965, to the Sales Tax Officer enquiring whether the notice dated 20th February, 1965, was issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act and what was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention is that the levy cannot be justified by reference to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. And, finally it is urged that the glass bangles sold by the petitioner are the very same articles purchased by it from the manufacturer and no part of the glass bangles sold can be said to have been manufactured by the petitioner. I shall deal with the last contention first. The submission of the petitioner is that the notification refers to a class of goods, namely glass bangles, and it cannot be said that what is sold by the petitioner does not fall in this class. The submission is that inasmuch as what was purchased by the petitioner belonged to that class and what was sold by it also belonged to that class, it cannot be said that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the same class. If the first article has been imported from outside Uttar Pradesh, its sale will attract sales tax at the point of sale by the importer. If the second article has been manufactured from the first article in Uttar Pradesh, its sale will attract sales tax at the point of sale by the manufacturer. Reliance was placed by the petitioner upon Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Chaman Das Jhanwar DasSales Tax Reference No. 77 of 1959, decided by Desai, C.J., and K.B. Asthana, J., on March 25, 1963. That decision, in my judgment, has no bearing upon the present case. The only question raised in that case was whether a certain article fell within the description "cloth manufactured by mills" mentioned in the notification which con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Commissioner[1963] 14 S.T.C. 208., where the meaning of the word "manufacture" has been discussed. The question whether the original article has been converted into a commercially different article is a question essentially of fact and one which appropriately falls for consideration before the Sales Tax Officer. It is in the assessment proceeding before the Sales Tax Officer that evidence may be led for the purpose of showing whether the article sold by the petitioner is not commercially different from the article purchased by it. The Legislature specifically constituted the Sales Tax Officer as the assessing authority and the question whether the petitioner is liable to be assessed upon the turnover of the glass bangles in question c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason to believe that the whole or part of the turnover has escaped assessment. Whether the turnover has actually escaped in fact or in law is not a consideration which determines the validity of the notice. So long as the Sales Tax Officer has reason to believe that the turnover or part of it has escaped assessment, he has jurisdiction to issue the notice. He must bona fide have reason for that belief, and there must be material upon which he comes to that belief. He must act reasonably and without arbitrariness. But that is not to say that it is only when he rightly comes to the conclusion that the turnover or part of it has escaped assessment that he can issue the notice. The belief that the turnover or part of it has escaped assessment m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In State of Orissa and Another v. M/s. Chakobhai Ghelabhai and Co.[1960] 11 S.T.C. 716; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 284., the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the validity of a notice issued in Form No. VI. It was a combined form for the purposes of sections 11 and 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, and accordingly contained certain recitals some of which pertained to section 11 and others to section 12. The notice was intended to be under section 12(5), but the recitals pertaining to the requirements of section 11 were not scored out. The Supreme Court observed that the omission to score out the unnecessary words did not make the notice bad in law, because there was no difficulty in the assessee understanding from the contents of the notice tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
