9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Sales Tax Act read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We are not concerned with the other part of the order. Being aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer and Kota Division, Jaipur. The contention of the assessee was that the penalty was imposed without giving him reasonable opportunity as required by rule 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, but it did not prevail and the appeal was dismissed. The assessee then approached the Board of Revenue in revision. The learned member of the Board was of the view that the accountant of the company and the authorised representative of the assessee were present and they were asked to account for the delay in submitting the returns, but they could offer no reason for late submission of the returns. In this view of the matter, it could not be said that a proper opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee. He, accordingly, by his order dated 1st December, 1966, refused to interfere with the order passed by the assessing authority and the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The assessee-company submitted an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the transaction of sales with the Bhagalpur Municipality and the BhagaIpur District Board which constitute the major part of the taxable turnover determined by the Sales Tax Officer. There is nothing in section 21(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act of 1944 to suggest that the duties of the High Court are confined to answer the question of law strictly in the grammatical form formulated by the Tribunal irrespective of whether it is the real question at issue between the taxing authorities and the assessee. It is well settled by a long line of authorities that the High Court may at the hearing of the reference resettle and reframe the issue so as to bring out the real point in issue between the assessee and the taxing authorities." The other judge deciding the case did not agree with the view expressed by Ramaswarni, J. The matter was referred to the third Judge. Das, J., agreed with the view taken by Ramaswami, J., on this point. It was observed by him: "I also agree with my learned brother Ramaswami, J., that even if the second question, as formulated by the Board of Revenue, is somewhat wide and requires modification, it is open to this court to resettle and reframe the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of his turnover or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such turnover; or (f) prevents or obstructs inspection, entry, search and seizure by an officer authorised under section 22; or (g) wilfully acts in contravention of any provision of this Act not otherwise provided for- the assessing authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in the case referred to in clause (a), in addition to the fee payable by him, a sum not exceeding Rs. 50, and in the case referred to in clause (b), in addition to the amount payable by him, a sum not exceeding half of that amount, and that in cases referred to in clauses (c) and (d), in addition to the tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding half the amount of tax determined; in the case referred to in clause (e), in addition to the tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding double the amount of tax, if any, which would have been avoided if taxable turnover as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct turnover, and in the cases referred to in clauses (f) and (g), a sum not exceeding Rs. 100." It is true that rule 54 does not require the issue of a notice in writing to show cause against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determination is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the opportunity given to the dealer was a reasonable opportunity in terms of the requirement of rule 54. According to the assessing authority, Shri C.L. Pandya, accountant of the assessee-company, was asked to adduce reasons for late submission of the returns, but he could not offer any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The learned member of the Board of Revenue who dealt with this case stated that Shri Pandya, accountant, and Shri V. K. Singhal, authorised representative, were asked the reasons for the belated submission of the returns. In his opinion, they were representing the dealer for all purposes. He further thought that these two representatives had no reason to give and as such, it was impossible for him to hold that proper opportunity was not given. Firstly, there is a clear discrepancy between what the assessing authority said and the learned member of the Board understood. That apart, there is nothing on record to suggest that Shri Pandya, accountant, and Shri V.K. Singhal, authorised representative, of the assessee were representing the dealer for all purposes. They were certainly there to assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not meet the requirements of law, that is to say, was opposed to the principles of natural justice, then the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 33-B should be struck down on the ground that the initiation of the proceeding being opposed to the principles of natural justice, the subsequent proceedings could not be taken." The following observations may be aptly extracted here: "Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the assessee, did not argue that section 33-B prescribed a form of notice to be served upon the assessee and that the notice, in the instant case, was bad because it did not conform to the form of the notice. All that the section required was that the assessee should be given 'an opportunity of being heard'. This opportunity, Dr. Pal submitted, must not be a token opportunity, but a reasonable opportunity. In our opinion, Dr. Pal is right in this submission. As far back as in the year 1958, the Supreme Court laid down in the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India[1958] S.C.R. 1080, 1095. 1096; (1958) S.C.A. 222., what should be the measure of opportunity to be given. The Supreme Court observed: 'He must not only be given an opportunity but such o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
