9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordance with the provisions of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act and the Rules framed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Dabra. The petitioner also prayed that the notice for assessment (annexure P24) may also be quashed. 2.. The petitioner is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of grain, oil-seeds, pulses and paddy at Dabra, which commenced with effect from November 1, 1992 and applied for registration under section 16 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner was liable to pay tax with effect from November 12, 1992 and according to proviso (ii) of the rule 15 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, a dealer is required to file a return for the broken period of a quarter ending first after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une of Rs. 7,94,640 but has not shown the same in his turnover, thereby he has concealed this income. This fact came to light by the Flying Squad. It is stated that since the petitioner appears to be guilty of concealment of this income, therefore, the respondents are demanding a security of Rs. 10 lakhs. 4.. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 5.. So far as the validity of section 38-A is concerned, suffice it to say that validity of section 38 was challenged before this Court which provides for appeal and the condition that when appeal is filed, the appellant has to deposit certain amount of the tax. That question was agitated before this Court in the case of Lachhmandas v. State of M.P. [1995] 98 STC 274; 1995 MPLJ 925 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the security of Rs. 10 lakhs. This fact has not been disputed by the respondent in the return rather at the time of passing this order, the respondent was aware of the return filed by the petitioner and on the contrary, they have admitted that return has been filed by the respondents and as per return, it appears that there is concealment of the taxable turnover, which shows that the petitioner had filed return on April 30, 1993 and also denied the fact. Both these facts have been admitted by the respondents in their return. There was no necessity for the respondents to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner. It appears that as per section 16-A(2), where the assessee has failed to file the return or has failed to pay tax, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " Therefore, the assessee if requests the respondents for summoning the record of Krishi Upaj Mandi, then he has right and the respondents are under obligation to summon the record in accordance with law. Likewise, it is also incumbent on the respondent to furnish all the documents which they want to utilise against the petitioner for assessment. It is for the fair-play as well as for the requirement of section 18 of the Act. 8.. Therefore, it is directed that the respondents make all the records which they want to use against the petitioner available to the petitioner and shall also summon the record. Validity of section 38-A of the Act is upheld. The petition is allowed in part. The order dated August 20, 1993 (annexure P17) and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
