9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gations against the petitioner and also states that the petitioner had not submitted the papers regarding purchases or its photocopies. Thus the allegation against the petitioner was that he had not got such purchases verified nor had he produced the relevant vouchers regarding the purchases. He had not produced the relevant account books or bills and vouchers in support of the purchases made by him. In our opinion this was relevant material on the basis of which action u/s 21 could be taken, and we cannot go into its adequacy. As observed by the division Bench of this Court in Kalpana Kala Kendra v. Sales Tax Officer [ 1988 (12) TMI 318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] , taxes must be collected by the statutory machinery, and hence action could be taken u/s 21, whether it results on account of concealment or fraud by the assessee or as a result of negligence or ignorance of the assessing officer. The escapement of assessment contemplated by section 21 may be due to various reasons. We are of the opinion that there was material before the respondent-authorities prima facie showing that there was both concealment by the petitioner as well as negligence and ignorance on the part of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after adjusting the tax of Rs. 1,350 from the amount which had been deducted from the bills of the petitioner the balance be refunded to the petitioner. True copy of the assessment order is annexure 1 to the writ petition. 4.. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner had submitted the list of purchases made by him from the registered dealers within the State of U.P. and the assessing authority being fully satisfied that all the purchases except sand and morum used in construction work was made from registered dealers after payment of trade tax granted exemption from the liability of payment of trade tax on the said amount. It is alleged that all the original bills were duly produced by the petitioner before the assessing officer and the trade tax officer has recorded a finding that original bills and vouchers pertaining to the purchases were produced before him and the said vouchers were verified by him from the purchase list. The said assessment order became final as no appeal or revision was filed against it. 5.. Subsequently the petitioner received a notice dated January 16, 2003 from the office of the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Jhansi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner did not appear in response to the notice under section 21(2) on February 15, 2003 and did not produce the bills, vouchers and account books in support of the purchases. Hence the ex parte order dated March 13, 2003 was passed and a tax of Rs. 1,11,742 was imposed. Thereafter an application under section 30 was filed and the case was reopened but despite several opportunities the petitioner had not verified the list of purchases nor had he produced the vouchers regarding purchases. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit. 8.. This writ petition was filed in September 2003 that is long after the order dated February 11, 2003 was passed by the respondent No. 2 granting permission under section 21(2) and long after the notice dated February 15, 2003 and even long after the assessment order dated March 13, 2003. Since there is unexplained delay as to why the order dated February 11, 2003 was challenged after a delay of seven months we are not inclined to look into the validity of the order dated February 11, 2003 as the challenge to that order is belated. For these reasons we also not inclined to go into the validity of the notice dated February 15, 2003 as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order dated January 16, 2003 shows that the respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the exemption has been granted wrongly and necessary papers had not been submitted or were not on record. Hence in our opinion permission was rightly granted by the respondent No. 2. 13.. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 293 (SC); AIR 1973 SC 370 it was held that where the dealer has not submitted the relevant account books and the assessing authority had material to show that part of the turnover had escaped assessment proceedings under section 21 could be taken. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment (page 299 of STC) it was observed that if there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the assessing authority to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover had escaped assessment it can take action under section 21. Of course the grounds should not be of extraneous character and should be germane to the formation of the belief regarding escaped assessment, but otherwise this Court cannot interfere on the ground of insufficiency of the material. What can be challenged is the existence of the belief but not the sufficiency for reason to belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k of care on the part of the assessing officer or by reason of inadvertence on his part. Section 21 does not prohibit obtaining of information from the investigation of material on the record of the original assessment. The scope of that section is not circumscribed by a rider like the one that exists in section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely, the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. The escapement envisaged by section 21 of the Act for the purposes of reassessment need not necessarily spring from a source extraneous to the original record." 17.. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid decision. In the present case the order dated January 16, 2003, annexure 2 to the writ petition, shows that the allegations against the petitioner were that the petitioner had done sale and construction work of Rs. 17,22,771 for the Divisional Railway Manager, Jhansi, but he had not submitted the contract papers in this connection. The further allegation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
