9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Sales Tax Act; and the order dated May 25, 1990 (annexure I) passed by respondent No. 3 under section 39(2) of the State Sales Tax Act. 2.. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a works contractor and he takes contracts to construct buildings, roads, etc. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not a registered dealer under the State Sales Tax Act during the period from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987. The petitioner received a notice bearing No. 991 dated March 12, 1987 in form No. 24 from the Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Circle 1. By the said notice the petitioner was asked to produce before him his books of accounts for determination of his liability to pay tax under section 4-A of the State Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued (annexure F). Being aggrieved by the said two assessment orders dated July 27, 1989 by the respondent No. 1 under the State Sales Tax Act and also under the Entry Tax Act, the petitioner filed separate revision applications under section 39(1) of the State Sales Tax Act and under section 13 of the Entry Tax Act. In these revisions, besides other grounds, a ground that the proceedings of assessments initiated by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Circle No. 2 were barred by limitation as provided under section 18(6)(a) of the State Sales Tax Act. It was submitted before the revisional authority-Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, that according to section 18(6)(a) of the State Sales Tax Act read with section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on May 25, 1990 under section 39(2) and levied a penalty of Rs. 11,000 under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act (annexure I). In this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of orders dated July 27, 1989 (annexures E and F); orders dated June 1, 1990 (annexures G and G-1) passed under section 39(1) of the State Sales Tax Act and also the order dated May 25, 1990 (annexure I) passed under section 39(2) of the State Sales Tax Act on the ground that the proceedings were barred by time under section 18(6)(a) of the State Sales Tax Act and also on the ground that under the aforesaid section the proceedings have to be initiated within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not raised at the time of assessment before respondent No. 1. Alternatively it was also submitted that the petitioner could avail the remedy under section 45 of the State Sales Tax Act as the same was pending before respondent No. 3 on the date of the filing of the petition. 4.. In the rejoinder it was submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application under section 45 of the State Sales Tax Act and section 13 of the Entry Tax Act and the aforesaid applications were decided by order dated May 6, 1991 and that the objection regarding the limitation were raised and decided by the revisional Deputy Commissioner which are filed on record as annexures L and M. 5.. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of tax under section 4-A(1) was passed on July 16, 1987 by annexure C. The Government Advocate for the respondents also does not dispute this date. Now the sole question remains to be decided is that when the proceedings under section 18(6)(a) were initiated. The form XVI, annexure D is the only notice on record. This notice No. 154 is dated January 12, 1989 and by this notice the petitioner was asked to remain present before respondent No. 2 on January 23, 1989. Thereafter the assessment orders were passed. It is also not disputed that by orders dated May 25, 1990 and June 1, 1990 (annexures I, G and G-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, this question of limitation was not decided though this question was raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d record is not traceable and therefore, final arguments were heard. 10.. In the petition the petitioner has pleaded that for the first time a common notice in form XVI bearing No. 154 dated January 12, 1989 was issued to the petitioner for the assessment under section 18(6) for the period from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987 and in the return this fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, from the return itself it is clear that the respondents have admitted these facts. From the aforesaid notice dated January 12, 1989 it is very much clear that no other notice was ever issued by the respondents for the assessment under section 18(6) to the petitioner. The order sheets of respondent No. 2, Sales Tax Officer, is not availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
