9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1941 (in short, the 1941 Act ). 2.. The company is a registered dealer and carries on business of manufacturing tea processing machine and spare parts at a factory situated in Howrah. It regularly submitted returns, and did so in respect of the annual periods, each of four quarters ending March 31, 1989, March 31, 1990, March 31, 1991 and March 31, 1992. The returns were treated as correct and complete in terms of the provisions of the section 11E(1) of the 1941 Act and the assessments for those periods were deemed to have been made accordingly. The company did not receive any notice of hearing under section 11E(2) of the 1941 Act, but received an order dated June 18, 1997 informing it that its deemed assessments for the four perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tements of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales in respect of REP licences. The applicant has again approached to this Tribunal with the present application. 3.. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has mentioned a number of reasons why he considers the notice to be invalid. He has pointed out that the notices were issued on June 15, 1999, this shows the respondents had made up their mind and were ready with those notices on that date, but on that very date when the Tribunal was hearing the matter, they did not inform the Tribunal of their decision. He then contended that in terms of rule 54AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules of 1941, the date of hearing should be fixed ordinarily after 15 days from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court declared that REP licences are goods within the meaning of sales tax laws. Mr. Bajoria says that he is aware that this Tribunal, in the case of Shivdham Wood Products Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1999] 112 STC 87, has held that the legal position as clarified by the Supreme Court, will be deemed to be operative from the date the legal provision of the statute came into force. He is also aware that the Karnataka High Court had taken a similar view in the case of Mysore Cements Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-V), City Division, Bangalore reported in [1994] 93 STC 464. But he wants to rely on the judgment of a division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the present case the deviation from the ordinary time-limit ought to be ignored, because even the applicant has not submitted that he was prejudiced by being given nine days time in place of the fifteen days ordinarily given. In support of his contention, he refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, reported in [1969] 24 STC 343. 5.. Mr. Goswami then submits that it is not true, as alleged by Mr. Bajoria, that the assessment orders under section 11(1), passed after the deemed assessments were reopened, are still valid. In this connection he draws attention to the operative part of the order of this Tribunal dated June 15, 1999 which, among other thing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in certain circumstances, if they have escaped assessments, are brought within the taxation net. The intention of the dealer furnishing the return, or even his knowledge, is not relevant in determining whether this sub-section is attracted in a particular case. It is adequate that there has resulted a reduction in the amount of tax payable by the dealer because of furnishing of incorrect statement of his turnover. That has been the case here and therefore the authorities were within their jurisdiction when they decided to evoke this sub-section in the present case. Mr. Goswami submitted that there is no ground on which the notice under section 11E can be called defective. He therefore requested that the application be dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents under section 11(1) of the 1941 Act, and hence the contention of Mr. Bajoria about the continued existence of the orders till the present time is not tenable. Lastly, regarding his efforts to apply the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. case [1981] 130 ITR 710, we have not been able to agree with him. We do not dispute the existence of doubt prior to the declaration by the Supreme Court about the REP licences being liable to sales tax. In Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. case [1981] 130 ITR 710, the Calcutta High Court decided that, in view of such doubt existing in that case before the Supreme Court had clarified the matter, it cannot be said that the action taken by the Income-tax officer could be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
