9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings. On the basis of this information, proceedings were taken against the assessee under section 21 to reopen the assessment for the year 1960-61. The assessee admitted purchases worth Rs. 967.50 only and denied the rest. This plea of the assessee was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer who estimated the escaped turnover of ornamented glass bangles at Rs. 28,000 and added it to the turnover of inter-State sales as originally assessed. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) upheld the action under section 21 but reduced the estimate of escaped turnover to Rs. 13,000. Both the assessee and the Commissioner applied in revision. The assessee challenged the action under section 21 as also the quantum of turnover. The Commissioner, on the other hand, contended that the appellate authority had reduced the quantum of turnover without any justification. The Judge (Revisions) rejected the assessee's revision but allowed that of the Commissioner in part, inasmuch as he enhanced the quantum of escaped turnover to Rs. 17,000. On an application by the assessee under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Judge (Revisions) has submitted the following questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 11(1), the assessee sought reference on as many as six questions. Question No. (6) relates to this aspect of the matter and reads as below: "(6) Whether there was any material on record to treat the escaped turnover as inter-State sales liable to tax as defined under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act?" The Judge (Revisions) in his order under section 11(1) has refused to refer that question on the ground that the same is a question of fact and not of law. In the circumstances, it is curious indeed to find that the Judge (Revisions) in the three questions referred by him, has included question No. (1) which in substance is the same as question No. (6). Once the Judge (Revisions) refused to refer a question he has no jurisdiction to include the same in the statement of the case drawn up by him. The only way in which such a question can be referred to the High Court is that the assessee makes an application under section 11(4) and the High Court directs the Judge (Revisions) to refer the question which he had originally declined to do. This admittedly had not been done. In the circumstances we decline to answer this question firstly because it does not arise out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that notice section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It would be pertinent to reproduce the following observations of this court at page 93: "The last contention which remains to be considered is whether the notice is invalid. It is said that the notice does not on the face of it disclose that it has been issued in connection with the proposed assessment of sales tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act, and that the subsequent intimation by the Sales Tax Officer to the petitioner that it has been issued in connection with such assessment cannot validate the notice. Whether a notice, such as this, is invalid will depend on whether it succeeds in the purpose for which it is issued. The notice is intended to inform the assessee of the proposed action by the assessing authority and also to inform him clearly as to what is required of him. If the assessee has no difficulty in understanding the purpose of the notice its validity cannot successfully be impugned." Then towards the end of the judgment the court summed up its conclusion in the following words: "The notice, it is true, mentioned at the top that it was under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, but it cannot be forgot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplementary assessment under section 21 if it is discovered that the assessee was carrying on some other business also which had not been considered in the original assessment. However, if the original assessment is a best judgment assessment in respect of a particular source, no second best judgment assessment is permissible under law under section 21 on the ground that the original estimate was low. In other words, it is not possible for the department to substitute one best judgment assessment by another merely on the change of opinion and in the absence of any fresh definite material. However, if some definite material comes into the possession of the department, which warrants a higher addition to the disclosed turnover than the one originally made on best judgment basis, it is open for the department to do so. But in such a case, it is only just and proper that the addition already made in the original assessment must be deducted out of the addition which is proposed to be made under section 21. That is not a rule of law but merely a rule of common sense. Now in the instant case, an enhancement in the assessee's turnover of ornamented glass bangles was made in the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
