9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as fixed under the Central Excise Tariff from time to time. The production and distribution of cloth by the petitioner is subject, inter alia, to the various orders and/or notifications issued by the Textile Commissioner from time to time under the Cotton Textile Control Order, 94 ( after referred to as " the order "), promulgated under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly in the year 1964 an order for the statutory control on production and pricing of controlled cloth including the fixation of minimum obligation for the production of such controlled cloth was issued by the Textile Commissioner under the provisions of the order. This scheme was subsequently revised in May, 1968, in respect of the specifications of controlled cloth and statutory orders specifying the minimum quantity of controlled cloth of the specified varieties required to be packed were issued separately for each mill in respect of each quarter beginning from May, 1968. The petitioner claims that in accordance with the above statutory orders it manufactured and packed controlled cloth and sold the same at the ex-mill prices calculated in accordance with the formula of multipliers as laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k was less than 16 (Med. ` A ' falsely cleared as Med. ' B ' controlled) = 88,78,797 Mtrs. (b) Fabrics wherein the difference of Read & Pick was less than 16 (Med. 'B' non-controlled falsely cleared as Med. 'B' controlled)6,99,965 Mtrs. Total = 95.78,762 Mtrs. or 68,67,072 sq. Mtrs. Value of these goods is shown at Rs. 1,56,005.49 and Rs. 12,18,202. For the purpose Of Your assessment you are required to kindly give the following information : (i) Trade name of fabrics. (ii) Sale rate if to be sold as controlled cloth. (iii) Sale rate if to be sold as uncontrolled cloth. (iv) Sale rate at which actually sold. (v) Difference between Cols. Nos. (iii) and (iv). Above information should be given for the period 1-1-1969 to 12-4-1972. This information is required with respect to the following qualities as at (a), (b) and (c) : (a) Shirting between period from 1-1-1969 to 12-4-1972 (6,99,965 linear meters or 5,17,986 Sq. Metres). S. No. Factory's stamping No. (b) Following 45 varieties of shirtings measuring 88,78,797 linear metres or 63,49,087 sq. metres between 1-1-1969 to 12-4-1972. S. No. Factory's stamping No. It has come to my notice that the above fabri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such question could arise. " On the 25th March, 1975, itself, the respondent passed the assessment order purporting to be under s. 144 of the Act which was served at 4 p.m. on the assistant secretary of the petitioner-company. The assessment order, referred to above, was challenged by the petitioner by means of writ petition in this court which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under s.146 of the Act. The dismissal of the writ petition was followed up by the petitioner by its presenting an application under s. 146 before the respondent on the 26th April, 1975, praying for the cancellation of the assessment order under s. 144 and for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On the 28th August, 1975, the respondent passed an order under s. 146 of the Act, cancelling the assessment earlier made under s. 144. An appeal which had been preferred by the petitioner before the AAC against the assessment order dated 25th March, 1975, became infructuous in view of the order passed by the respondent under s. 146 of the Act and it was ordered to be filed by the AAC. Simultaneously with the passing of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow any sale of medium " A " cloth as medium " B ". The respondent is making a roving and fishing enquiry, according to the petitioner, merely on conjectures. It is averred that since the allegations contained in the notice under s. 142(1) of the Act were based on conjectures and were of a general nature such a reply thereto as was sent by the petitioner could not be but one of general denial. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri K. K. Pandey, ITO, Central Circle " I ", Kanpur, to whom the petitioner's case has been transferred and before whom the assessment proceedings are now pending. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that " according to information received by the respondent-Income-tax Officer, the petitioner packed and marked non-controlled cloth as controlled cloth and sold the same. The petitioner was falsifying its accounts relating to controlled and non-controlled cloth in order to make illegal gains. The respondent, Income-tax Officer, wanted to enquire into the matter but enquiries could not be completed so far on account of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 1st of December, 1975, and as modified subsequently ". It has further been averred in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ... as the Income-tax Officer may require ........." Section 142(1) of the Act arms the assessment authorities with wide powers of requiring relevant material to be furnished by an assessee who files a return under s. 139, or to whom a notice has been issued under subs. (2) of that provision for the purpose of completing the assessment proceedings. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the positive assertions made by the respondent by means of an affidavit verified on oath that the ITO concerned had in his possession information that the petitioner was passing off non-controlled variety of cloth after stamping the same as controlled cloth with the price fixed for such controlled cloth on the packings. It may be noted here that it has not been specifically asserted by the petitioner in his petition that what was being stamped as controlled cloth was not in fact uncontrolled cloth which was saleable in the market at rates higher than that fixed for sale of controlled cloth. In the various communications addressed by the petitioner, copies of which had been filed by the petitioner along with the petition, also there is no unambiguous and specific assertion that what was pack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
