9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were registered as dealers under the said Act. Under section 33(5) of the said Act, if a registered dealer does not furnish returns in respect of any period by the prescribed date, the Sales Tax Officer has the power to make a best judgment assessment after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the period of Samwat Year 2022, the applicants failed to file any return and even though notice was served upon them under section 33(5) of the said Act, they failed to produce their books of account as also to file their returns for the said period. Accordingly, the Sales Tax Officer passed or made an ex Parte order of best judgment assessment. In respect of the period 13th November, 1966, to 2nd November, 1967, that is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact the dealer failed to produce the books of account for verification not that (sic) but the dealer failed to submit the returns for the whole year and after show cause notice submitted only returns without the payment of taxes on 27th June, 1969, and under these circumstances ex parte assessment order is completed to be passed as follows. " It is an admitted position that though returns for the said period had been filed more than a month prior to the passing of the said ex parte order of assessment and though this fact is mentioned in the said order of assessment, the Sales Tax Officer did not take into consideration these returns or what was stated therein. The applicants thereafter filed an appeal before the Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in respect thereof an ex parte order had also been made, are unsupportable in law. As mentioned earlier, it is not clear from the record whether the applicants had at any time appeared before the Sales Tax Officer, but it is difficult to understand how the matter was adjourned to different dates as mentioned in the order of assessment unless the applicants had appeared. The admitted position, however, is that the applicants did appear before the Sales Tax Officer on 18th July, 1969. This is one of the dates which is mentioned in the said order of assessment as being a date to which an adjournment was given. The Tribunal in its judgment stated that on that day the applicants had not been called for the purpose of assessment but were cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the record. In our opinion, if, before the Sales Tax Officer came to pass the ex parte order of assessment, the applicants had submitted the returns and these returns were accepted and taken on the record, it was not right for the Sales Tax Officer to ignore these returns and to seek to assess the applicants as if no returns had been filed. The position in law is clear and obvious and no authority is required in support of it. We, however, find ourselves fortified in the conclusion we have reached by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Bata Shoe Company Private Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, Madras[1968] 21 S.T.C. 135. Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, makes provision similar to sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
