9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment dated 20th June, 1980, made by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Davangere, for the assessment period commencing from 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979. 2.. The assessee, M/s. Andanur Kotrabasappa Bros., is a trader in Davangere. As the assessee did not comply with the statutory obligations of filing of the returns for the relevant assessment periods a proposition-notice dated 11th June, 1979, pointing out the non-compliance by the assessee in response to the earlier notice served on 10th May, 1979, and proposing to levy sales tax on the assessee on a turnover of Rs. 1,00,000 was caused to be issued by the assessing authority. In response to this notice, the assessee by its letter dated 29th June, 1979, stated that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) That on 3rd April, 1980, the partner of the assessee-firm did appear before the assessing authority and the matter had to be adjourned on that day on account of the assessing authority proceeding on leave and that the partner was given to understand that fresh notices would be issued in this behalf. The assessment finalised without such further notice is at once improper, unfair and stands vitiated. 4.. We see no merit in any one of these contentions. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned counsel, that a best judgment assessment should not be arbitrary but must have some basis. Sri Manjunath says that for the months of May to December, 1978, which constituted a substantial part of the assessment period, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the entire turnover as taxable was a logical finale of the omission on the part of the assessee to discharge the burden under section 6-A. 6.. So far as the third point that on 3rd April, 1980, the partner of the assessee-firm did, in fact, appear before the Commercial Tax Officer and that there was an assurance from the latter that a fresh notice would be issued is concerned, the learned counsel did not, in our opinion, wisely press this contention, after looking into the ground No. 3 urged by the assessee before the first appellate authority. 7. There is thus no merit in the petition. It is accordingly rejected at the admission stage. Smt. M.R. Vanaja, High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file memo of appearance, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
