9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1993 requiring the petitioner to show cause against non-submission of (1)Oral. monthly statement of turnover with payment of due taxes under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner was directed to show cause in writing by appearing in person on December 4, 1993 as to why penal action should not be taken as per the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner the notice was received by his representative as he was out of station and accordingly he could not appear on December 4, 1993. However, he appeared before respondent No. 1 on November 30, 1993 and ascertained in writing that he would file the pending returns with full payment of due taxes. He deposited taxes amounting to Rs. 7,200 for the period from July 1, 1993 to Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me date by letter dated March 11, 1994. The total sales and taxes paid as per the said return was Rs. 7,193. The respondent No. 1 passed an order of assessment dated March 11, 1994 determining the alleged total sale proceeds of the periods July 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994 at Rs. 10,00,000 which according to the petitioner would grossly showing I on mere estimate in consideration of the report dated March 10, 1994 as indicated in the assessment order. It is the legality and validity of the said assessment order dated March 10, 1994 which is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel. Mr. Joshi submits that on the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the monthly sale of the petitioner was purportedly estimated. However, the petitioner was not provided with any copy of the said report but the same was taken into account by the Superintendent of Taxes behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, on both count, i.e., (1) nonconsideration of the returns submitted by the petitioner along with the sale statement and (2) consideration of the report of the Inspector of Taxes without furnishing the copy of the same to the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the impugned assessment order dated March 11, 1994 is not sustainable. In such a situation this court is left with no option than to set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 11, 1994 and consequential action and payment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
