9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, outside Chattiwind Gate, Amritsar, is a registered assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1964-65, a notice under section 11(2) of the Act in form S.T. XIV was issued against the assessee calling upon it to appear before the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, on 21st August, 1965. This notice could not be served upon the assessee. On 22nd November, 1966, another notice was issued against the assessee for appearance before the Excise and Taxation Officer on 13th December, 1965. On that date Shri R.N. Kapur, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the assessee and succeeded in getting the case adjourned to 24th January, 1966, for placing on record his power of attorney. The learned Advocate raised a controversy that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appeal filed by the assessee met the same fate. It was observed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 3 of its order that the assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that principles of natural justice had been violated and the basis for making the best judgment assessment had not been indicated to the assessee. The learned Tribunal negatived these contentions on the ground that the assessee had been given ample opportunity of appearing before the Assessing Authority and even then it did not avail of this opportunity. At the request of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred this case to us. We might add at this place that the assessee had also made a prayer to the Tribunal that the question regarding limitation for best judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t judgment assessment could be framed, the matter was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The fact, however, remains that Narula, J. (as the learned Chief justice then was), did give a firm finding that before the material collected behind the back of the assessee is utilised for framing a best judgment assessment, the same should be brought to the notice of the assessee. In S. Sant Singh v. Assessing Authority, Amritsar[1971] 28 S.T.C. 567., B.R. Tuli, J., had to consider a similar matter, when the learned judge observed as under: "This petition deserves to succeed on the short ground that the material collected by the Assessing Authority by local enquiries was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. If he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co.[1967] 20 S.T.C. 520 (S.C.)., and Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd.[1970] 25 S.T.C. 57 (S.C.). We are in respectful agreement with this view. The learned counsel for the revenue has vehemently asserted that since the assessee did not co-operate with the authorities and was indulging in dilatory tactics we should not show any indulgence to it. We are not impressed with this submission. If the view taken by Tuli, J., is accepted, as we have done, nothing stopped the Assessing Authority from conveying the information privately collected by it, in the form of a notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
