9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1 on November 28, 1969, an appellate order against that order of assessment passed on January 21, 1976, by the respondent No. 2 and an order dated March 22, 1982, passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal in respect of that appellate order as well as one suo motu order of review dated March 24, 1976, passed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of the appellate order relating to the aforesaid assessment made by order dated November 28, 1969. 3.. The applicants have challenged the order of assessment and the appellate order as well as the order in revision by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal on two grounds. The first contention of the applicants is that the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal was not justified in sendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation. As copy of that report of the Bureau of Investigation was not given to the applicants before passing the suo motu order on March 24, 1976, the respondent No. 3 directed remand of the review case. It was pointed out before the respondent No. 3 by Mr. Nahar, the learned advocate for the applicants that a suo motu review ought not to have been done by the respondent No. 2 before expiry of the period for making of an application for review by the applicants. This contention of Mr. Nahar was negatived by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that law nowhere envisaged or contemplated that a suo motu review could be embarked only after communication of the appellate order. We are unable to accept this view of the respondent No. 3. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time taken for obtaining copy of the appellate order. In the circumstances, the order for suo motu review, as passed on March 24, 1976, is clearly in violation of the provisions in rule 80(6)(i) of the Rules of 1941 and is to be set aside. 6.. As for the grievance of the applicants regarding imposition of penalty, it is to be stated that in the order of assessment dated November 28, 1969, the respondent No. 1 observed that the dealer was a habitual defaulter in payment of tax and submission of returns for past several years and that penalty imposed earlier had not yielded any fruitful result. He referred to the fact that even during the year 1968-69 the admitted tax had not been paid in full. The respondent No. 1 observed in the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
