9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (7) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Kanpur, which were dismissed. Admittedly it did not file any revision application before the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax but made an application to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for the stay of recovery of the tax during the pendency of the appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax had passed an order on 1st May, 1965, to the effect that if 25 per cent. of the disputed tax was deposited and security for the balance was furnished within a month, then recovery of 75 per cent. shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal. After the dismissal of the appeals respondent No. 2 issued two recovery certificates against the petitioner: one for a sum of Rs. 18,000 (balance under the Act) and the other for a sum of Rs. 15,000 (balance under the Central Act). The petitioner then moved. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., respondent No. 1, on 8th November, 1965, praying for stay of the realisation of the two sums mentioned above, that is the aggregate amount of Rs. 33,000. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., passed an order on the same date (8th November, 1965). staying recovery of Rs. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Judge (Revisions) can, on a case being made out, give it full relief. Mr. BrijIal Gupta contends that the petitioner did not file revision applications because at the end of the year while making the final assessments, provisional assessments made on 8th March, 1965, would have to be reopened and the amounts paid or made payable under the orders dated 8th March, 1965, would be adjusted while determining the taxes payable for the whole year. The petitioner can, in this manner, get full redress for its alleged grievance and if it has deliberately chosen to adopt that course, it must take the logical consequences of its decision and wait till the final assessments for the year in question are made. The existence of this alternative remedy is a good ground for not admitting this petition. The petitioner admittedly has also the alternative remedy of filing revision applications. That is another reason why this petition should not be admitted. We would have disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy alone without entering into the merits of the submissions made by Mr. Gupta. Mr. Gupta has, however, contended that inasmuch as he has challenged the vires of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to pay tax under this Act shall submit such return or returns of his turnover at such intervals, within such period in such form and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; but the assessing authority may in its discretion, for reasons to be recorded, extend the date for the submission of the return by any person or class of persons. (1-A) ................................................................... (2) ................................................................... (3) If no return is submitted by the dealer under sub-section (1) within the period prescribed in that behalf or, if the return submitted by him appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, determine the turnover of the dealer to the best of his judgment and assess the tax on the basis thereof: Provided that before taking action under this sub-section the dealer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of any return submitted by him." Rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) also deals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a full opportunity of filing his return and putting his version before the Sales Tax Officer. It is clear from the averments made in the writ petition itself that the petitioner had been filing returns in the past and was fully aware of his right and his duty to file a return. If he did not avail of this opportunity or defaulted in performing this duty, he cannot complain of any breach of principles of natural justice. What the principles of natural justice could give him he has already got in the shape of section 7 and rule 41. There is no principle of natural justice that even though a person has a statutory right and a statutory duty to file a return and he does not do so he should still get another opportunity before he is assessed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no contravention of the principles of natural justice in the present case. Principles of natural justice do not require that a person should be heard at every stage of a proceeding (see R.N. Roy v. Commissioner of CustomsA.I.R. 1953 S.C. 348. and Brijlal Misra v. Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur Region, Kanpur 1958 A.L.J. 189. ). In the present case the petitioner had an opportunity of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso to section 7(3) of the Act because a dealer who does not avail of the opportunity provided by section 7(1) of the Act and rule 41 of the Rules and does not file a return is not entitled to a further opportunity and the Sales Tax Officer is required in the absence of the co-operation of the dealer in the assessment proceedings to exercise his best judgment. The absence of a provision that in case of default also the dealer should be heard before assessment is made on him has its roots in rules of public policy, for one who does not do his duty and fails to file a return must be made to suffer an assessment made on the basis of the best judgment of the assessing authority. From this it follows that the scheme of the Act and the Rules is that notice would be given only to a dealer who has filed an incorrect or incomplete return and not to a person who has filed no return at all. The scheme of the Act and the Rules, therefore, does not permit any notice being sent to a dealer who has defaulted in the filing of his returns and he cannot be heard to say that notwithstanding his default he is still entitled to a notice and an opportunity. There is no principle of natural justice tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either in the case before him nor it is before us. We find ourselves unable to agree that a provisional assessment cannot be made under section 7 read with rule 41. Section 7 of the Act clearly uses the words "such return or returns of his turnover at such intervals, within such period, in such form and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed". Section 7 of the Act, therefore, clearly envisages a rule prescribing more than one return in a year as also a rule prescribing intervals in a year at which a retrun can be filed. Sub-section (2) of section 7 also speaks of "any retruns submitted". This also contemplates cases of more than one return filed by an assessee in one year. No doubt, section 3 of the Act provides that the unit of assessment will be one whole year, but there is nothing against a rule which may require that even though there will be a final assessment only once a year, during that year provisional assessment can be periodically made in order to provide convenience to the assessee as also to the Government. Rule 41 enshrines that rule and section 7 contemplates such a rule. In our judgment section 7-A does not deal with normal assessment at all. It deals only w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
