9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with by the Assessing Authority in its correct perspective inasmuch as no finding has been recorded by the Assessing Authority about the availability or non-availability of B–File. True it is the petitioner also did not submit the duplicate documents, but as it is clear from the order that it was the duty of the Assessing Authority to have directed the appellant in case of non-availability of B–File, to submit duplicate. Thereafter, before the Revisional Authority, when the petitioner had submitted an application seeking time to produce the duplicates, the prayer should have been allowed, but it was denied on the ground that no specific period is mentioned in the application within which the petitioner would submit duplicate copy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition may be stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and selling in consumer products namely toilet soap, washing soap, face wash and detergents etc. It has a depot at Indore in Madhya Pradesh, which is a registered dealer. It is being assessed by the State as well as Central Sales Tax under the provisions of relevant statutes. The case of the petitioner is that it had furnished all the returns in respect of its turnover liable to tax in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992. The first two quarterly returns were submitted within the prescribed time and the other two quarterly returns were submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity to make aware the petitioner with the reasons for making best judgment assessments. He also directed to complete the fresh assessment, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation against the proposed additions. 5. In the fresh proceedings, the petitioner contended that all the requisite details and materials were already submitted at the time of making assessment and they are in File B of the Department. However, the Assessing Authority rejected the petitioner s contentions and maintained its earlier order dated 24.02.1995 vide order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure P/4). The said order was challenged by the petitioner once again before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing of the impugned orders by the Assessing Authority and the Revisional Authority. According to the respondents, the Authorities had granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents, but it failed to avail the same. 9. Having considered the averments made by the parties in the petition and in the return and after considering the arguments advanced by their counsel, we find that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore by order dated 15.09.1999 (Annexure P/5) had specifically directed the Assessing Authority to look into the B-File of the cases and thereafter decide the matter on merits. It was further observed that if B File is not available then appellant be directed to submit a duplicate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
