9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act of 1947") by the respondent No. 1, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Tezpur, summarily, vide order of assessment, dated March 9, 1987. However, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the said assessment was re-opened, in the purported exercise of powers under section 19-A of the Act of 1947 and vide order of re-assessment, dated May 16, 1989, the turnover of the petitioner-firm was reassessed. In the said order of reassessment, the respondent No. 1 held that the petitioner-firm had purchased tea from Kacharigaon Tea Estate, Rangapara, and had apparently sold the tea so purchased, but no sales tax was paid thereon. The respondent No. 1 assessed the turnover estimating the same to be Rs. 12,16,103 by adding 10 per cent profit and 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 1 requesting him to rectify the mistake since there was no sale by the petitioner-firm and the petitioner-firm simply acted as a transporter, which was apparent from the letter, dated December 7, 1989, issued by Monabari Tea Company Ltd. The respondent No. 1, however, vide letter, dated May 13, 1991, informed the petitioner that sufficient opportunity and time were given to the petitioner-firm before making the reassessment and hence, the petition could not be entertained. The petitioner, vide letter, dated June 11, 1991, denied that they were afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing of the reassessment order. The petitioner also informed the respondent No. 1 that no order of reassessment whatsoever was served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more, the respondent No. 1 was informed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes that the condition precedent to take recourse to section 19-A is not fulfilled and directed the respondent No. 1 to take action under section 20 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, after giving opportunity to the dealer to place the relevant papers before him. The said letter, dated July 31, 1991, of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes was forwarded to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner-firm with a request to rectify the order of reassessment, but the respondent No. 1, vide letter, dated April 1, 1992 rejected the prayer of the rectification. Feeling aggrieved by this rejection order, the petitioner-firm filed a revision application before the respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return period or has been under-assessed or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, he may, at any time within eight years of the end of the aforesaid period, serve on the dealer liable to pay the tax in respect of such turnover a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 16 or sub-section (2) of section 17 and may proceed to assess or reassess the dealer in respect of such period and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice served under the aforesaid sub-section. Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been ordinarily chargeable. (2) The Commissioner may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions precedent is not satisfied, the action taken would be without jurisdiction. It needs to be emphasised that service of a valid notice under section 19-A is, as correctly pointed out by Dr. A.K. Saraf, a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to reassess a dealer. In other words, if the notice does not comply with the requirements of section 19-A not only the notice but even the subsequent proceedings shall be without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law. 8. From the undisputed facts discernible from the materials on record, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner-firm simply acted as a transporter for transporting the tea, in question, entrusted to the petitioner-firm by Manaklal M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and in consequence thereof, the impugned order of reassessment and the order passed, on revision, by the respondent No. 2 confirming the said order of reassessment are illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside and quashed. This apart, the petitioner-firm having denied that no notice whatsoever was served on the petitioner-firm and no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner-firm before taking recourse to the provisions of section 19-A, it is difficult to hold, particularly when no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents concerned controverting the averments made, in this regard, by the petitioner-firm, in their writ petition, that notice was given to the petitioner-firm before making the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
