9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (24th October, 1976 to 11th November, 1977), samvat year 2034 (12th November, 1977 to 31st October, 1978), and samvat year 2035 (1st November, 1978 to 20th October, 1979) under the local Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said assessment proceedings were required to be finalised on or before Aso Vad Amas of samvat year 2038 (15th November, 1982). It is the petitioners' case that the firm had complied with the requests made in the notice issued to the firm and had produced all the evidence required by the respondent No. 1 so as to enable him to complete the assessment. Even though it was possible for respondent No. 1 to complete the assessments, he did not do so and instigated respondent No. 3 to stay the assessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm has filed appeals before respondent No. 2. February 10, 1992. On 30th April, 1983, respondent No. 1 passed orders of assessment under the Local Act and also the Central Act against the firm for samvat year 2035. The petitioners have filed appeals against those orders also. Although orders of assessments for samvat year 2035 were already passed on 30th April, 1983, respondent No. 3, on 28th September, 1983, issued a show cause notice, calling upon the firm to show cause as to why assessment proceedings for samvat year 2034, samvat year 2035 and samvat year 2036 should not be stayed up to Aso Vad Amas of samvat year 2040, i.e., 24th October, 1984. On 24th October, 1983, respondent No. 3 passed an order, staying the assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed as an enquiry was being held by the Sales Tax Officer C-2, Unit 2, Jamnagar. When the second show cause notice was given for samvat years 2034, 2035 and 2036 staying the assessment proceedings up to Aso Vad Amas of samvat year 2040, the reason given was that the assessment proceedings under section 46 were pending. But while passing the order, it was stated that the assessment proceedings were required to be stayed as an enquiry was pending with the Sales Tax Officer-2, Division 2, Jamnagar. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the reasons given in the notices and the reasons mentioned in the two orders are different. But merely because of that discrepancy, it is not possible to say that there was non-application of mind on the part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealings of a dealer is required to be made, then it can be regarded as a good reason for staying the assessment proceedings. After all, it is the duty of the Sales Tax Officer to recover proper amount of tax and see that the tax which is really due and payable does not escape. The enquiry which the Sales Tax Officer was making against the petitioners' transactions was not a fishing enquiry, but it was an enquiry, which was being held by the Sales Tax Officer for finding out the true nature of the transactions effected by the firm. As disclosed by the orders of assessments subsequently made, the petitioners' transactions, through commission agents stationed outside Gujarat, by despatching goods were really required to be investigated to find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
