Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1984 (9) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f all its imports by land, air or sea and the disposal of such import made by it during the period from 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1961. The petitioner was asked to furnish the details as per the statements attached in forms A, B and C. As no reply was received to this letter a reminder was sent to the petitioner asking it to furnish the required statements on or before 2nd December, 1970, without fail. The petitioner was put on notice that if those statements were not furnished within the stipulated period, the authorities would be constrained to start assessment proceedings on the bass of the information regarding the imports made by it, "treating that all goods have been sold in this State" (emphasis added). In reply to this lette .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioner vide its letter dated 24th June, 1971, again pointed out that the contemplated proceedings were not warranted in law. It was stated, "We received the goods through our bankers at Delhi, whereafter we came into possession of the said goods for the first time at Delhi. The clearance of these goods at Bombay and their despatch to us at Delhi was part of one continuous recognised process in their journey from abroad to us at Delhi. Please let us know what evidence you have been able to gather about their sale within Bombay.". While pointing out the legal position the petitioner, however, sought adjournment of the proceedings by two months to enable it to produce the relevant records. This request for adjournment was not allowed b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ders for the years 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, and 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, annexures I and K respectively. It is unnecessary to notice the tax and penalty imposed for these three years as the assessment has been challenged on the ground that the very initiation of those proceedings by service of notice under section 35 of the Act is invalid. It is useful at this stage to notice the definition of a "dealer" as defined in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. As per section 2(11) " 'dealer' means any person who whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise carries on the business of buying or selling goods in the State, and includes a State Government which carries on such business, and also any society, club or other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5(1)(b) but the Commissioner or the officer who has been delegated that authority must have "reason to believe" that the dealer has concealed such sales or purchases or any material particular relating thereto. In the present case, the impugned notices admittedly have been issued under section 35 of the Act and the very first sentence in those notices reads "Whereas I have reason to believe that your turnover in respect of the following sales and purchases, namely, ..............". The words "has reason to believe" in section 35 connote that the Commissioner's belief must not be arbitrary or irrational. The belief must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. This proposition is well-settled: See Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authorities initiated proceedings on the ground that the customs record at the Bombay dock showed that the petitioner had been importing goods like motor vehicle parts from abroad and had been getting those cleared at Bombay. There was not an iota of evidence that those goods had been sold in the State of Maharashtra or that the petitioner was a dealer carrying on business in that State. The preliminary objection raised in the counter-affidavit that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition is also misconceived. The petitioner received the impugned notices and assessment orders at Delhi. In view of the fact that the sales tax authorities at Bombay had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner, this Court has t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates