9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id period to the best of my judgment at Rs. (overleaf) and Rs. (overleaf) respectively. The reasons for non-acceptance of the return and the basis of the proposed assessment are furnished below. You are hereby called upon to show cause against the proposed assessment adducing evidences, if any, either in person or through a legal practitioner or an agent authorised in writing at 11-00 A.M. within 7 days at my office at Mysore failing which it will be presumed that you have no objections to the proposed assessment and orders as deemed fit will be passed. It is seen from the verification of the accounts that you have declared the turnover of Rs. 5,07,351.88 and taxable turnover of Rs. 84,427.11. You have claimed exemptions on the rest of the turnover. You are asked to file certificate for payment of tax in respect of consignment sales effected by your commission agent. You have also not produced copies of the sale pattis for cross verification. Further you are requested to intimate the total value of the jaggery purchased through the merchants at R.M.C., Mandya. The information may please be furnished immediately." As can be seen from the contents of the notice, the assessing aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid purchased ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 23-7-1978 A3 215 120.00 6,000.00 2. 4-10-1978 230 120.00 6,000.00 3. 6-10-1978 230 120.00 6,000.00 4. 28-10-1978 230 60.00 6,000.00 5. 12-11-1978 236 60.00 6,000.00 6. 26-11-1978 236 60.00 6,000.00 7. 23-1-1979 236 60.00 6,000.00 8. 16-11-1978 237 60.00 6,000.00 9. 15-10-1978 232 120.00 6,000.00 10. 16-10-1978 232 120.00 6,000.00 11. 17-10-1978 232 120.00 6,000.00 12. 29-9-1978 231 120.00 6,000.00 13. 18-11-1978 239 60.00 6,000.00 14. 6-7-1978 211 120.00 6,000.00 15. 12-3-1978 252 55.00 5,525.00 -----------------------------------------------------------------------The above transactions were not verifiable with reference to your accounts to show that they have been accounted. You are, therefore, given one more opportunity to produce the accounts and other documents supporting the proof that you have accounted for the same. Further as you have failed to produce the sale bills for having sold jaggery on commission basis, the exemptions claimed by you as a commission agent is not acceptable in the absence of proof. Therefore, if no proof is produced, the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing authority and having not done so, the contention of the petitioner was untenable. Aggrieved by the said order, the matter was taken up in second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal rejecting the contention of the petitioner that placing reliance on the information supplied by the market committee without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the concerned officer of the market committee, was untenable as the petitioner did not seek such an opportunity. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition. 3.. Learned counsel strenuously contended that when the assessing authority proposed to make an assessment on the basis of the information collected from the market committee, the principles of natural justice demanded that the said authority should have summoned the concerned officer of the market committee to appear before him so that the petitioner could cross-examine the said officer and as there was failure to do so, there was violation of rules of natural justice. He submitted that on this ground only the order of the assessing authority and the orders of the first and secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase of jaggery from the market committee furnished in the proposition notice. He did not choose to request the assessing authority to issue notice to the concerned officer to appear before him and expressing his desire to cross-examine him. Therefore, the assessing authority proceeded to accept the information supplied by the market committee and particularly on the ground that it was a statutory authority and there was no reason to suspect the account maintained by the market committee and accordingly made the best of judgment assessment. Having made the assessment the assessing authority also exercised its power under sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act to impose the penalty of Rs. 2,000. 6.. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner did not make any request before the assessing authority to cross-examine the concerned officer of the market committee. He, however, submitted that he wanted such an opportunity before the first appellate authority and also before the second appellate authority and those authorities were not justified in not granting the request. Particularly with reference to the first appellate authority, learned counsel submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request was rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that no such request had been made before the assessing authority. There can be no doubt that if such a request had been made before the assessing authority and the assessing authority had denied that request, the first appellate authority was bound to grant the request either by setting aside the order of the assessing authority or to summon the concerned officer of the market committee before it and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine the concerned officer. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention. 8.. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal [1987] 66 STC 292 (SC). The details of the facts of the case are not available. However it is seen from the head-note, that the complaint of the petitioner therein was that the statement of one Bankelal had been relied on by the Tribunal, whose statement had been recorded behind the back of the appellant therein and the appellant had no occasion to test the veracity of his statement by cross-examination. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
