Mithoo Labs. (i) Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/503938
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-02-1986
Case NumberM.P. No. 957 of 1983
JudgeP.D. Mulye and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.
Reported in[1986]63STC376(MP)
AppellantMithoo Labs. (i)
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM.S. Choudhary, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Kulshrestha, Government Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajjulal Motilal).
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - 2, they have failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, despite there.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
p.d. mulye, j.1. the petitioner who is registered sales tax dealer and deals in inter-state sales, has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, in the matter of section 39 of the m.p. general sales tax act with a prayer to quash the order dated 28th january, 1982, passed by respondent no. 3 (annexure-p3), the revisional order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 31st may, 1982 (annexure-p5), and the subsequent communication dated 28th april, 1983, issued by respondent no. 1 (exhibit-p7) under section 39(1-a) and the subsequent communication dated 25th august, 1983, issued by respondent no. 1 under section 39(1) of the m.p. general sales tax act (annexure-p9), being illegal on the ground that, apart from not giving a chance of hearing by respondent no. 1 and.....
Judgment:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

P.D. Mulye, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

1. The petitioner who is registered sales tax dealer and deals in inter-State sales, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of Section 39 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act with a prayer to quash the order dated 28th January, 1982, passed by respondent No. 3 (annexure-P3), the revisional order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 31st May, 1982 (annexure-P5), and the subsequent communication dated 28th April, 1983, issued by respondent No. 1 (exhibit-P7) under Section 39(1-A) and the subsequent communication dated 25th August, 1983, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (annexure-P9), being illegal on the ground that, apart from not giving a chance of hearing by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, they have failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, despite there being material available on record, which has resulted in failure of justice as the petitioner has not been granted exemption, vide registration certificate (annexure-P1) issued by the Industrial Department to the petitioner as a small-scale industry for the period under dispute, i.e., 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, nor has he been properly assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the inter-State trade as for such inter-State sales he ought to have been assessed separately under Section 18(4)(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

2. According to the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, carries on business of manufacturing and sale of ayurvedic medicines at Indore, is duly registered as a dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act. The petition relates to the assessment of the petitioner-firm for the period 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979. The petitioner-firm has been registered with the Industries Department as a small-scale industry, vide annexure-P1, on the basis of a notification dated 25th November, 1969, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, whereby the State Government has exempted the whole class of dealers mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule, in respect of the class of goods specified in column (2) from the payment of sales tax subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof for a period specified in column (3) of the said Schedule (annexure P2). The said notification has been amended, vide Notification No. A-3-12/78-V/ST dated 25th November, 1978, published in [1978] 11 VKN 72. By the said amendment in column 4(4) of the said notification, exhibit-P2, the words 'or at any time before assessment' have been added.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

3. Further, according to the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad, Indore (respondent No. 3), passed ex parte assessment for the aforesaid period, vide his order, annexure-P3, on the basis of the information collected from the books of account and other documents seized in the raid conducted by the sales tax department on 9th January, 1979, at the premises of the petitioner. Further, according to the petitioner, he had supplied further information to the assessing authority during the scrutiny proceedings, which included information relating to inter-State sales as also sales under declaration as contemplated by the notification, annexure-P2. Further, according to the petitioner, the proceedings before the assessing authority were being attended to by the son of the partner of the petitioner, who is illiterate and uneducated along with his tax practitioner. However, the main partner Mr. Balmukund Panchal could not devote any time to the hearing and hence the proceedings could not be properly attended to though the petitioner was given 16 adjournments from time to time about which the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submitted that he cannot make any grievance on that count.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the assessing authority had a legal obligation to determine the inter-State sales as the same are liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act only and no inter-State sales can be brought to tax under the State sales tax law. Similarly declarations of sales as contemplated by the notification, annexure-P2, are also exempt from levy of tax as the petitioner being a small-scale industry is immune from levy of sales tax, in respect of the sales covered by the notification under Section 12. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been that even the ex parte assessment proceedings being quasi-judicial, have to be completed in accordance with law as respondent No. 3 was duty-bound to decide and determine the tax liability correctly. Further, according to the petitioner, despite there being material available with respondent No. 3 in the form of account books and documents which were seized by the Flying Squad in which entries regarding inter-State sales were written as also the material regarding the sale of ayurvedic drugs for which the petitioner was granted exemption from sales tax, he has ignored and failed to consider the same without carefully going through the same and has thus failed to determine the inter-State sales as also sales which were exempt from tax and thus he has acted contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Sales Tax Act with the result that the petitioner has been heavily taxed illegally.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

5. The petitioner against the order of respondent No. 3 filed revision petition under Section 39(1) of the said Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Indore (respondent No. 2), as per annexure-P4 enclosing therewith certain papers and documents and contended in the statement of facts that as the petitioner-firm has effected mostly sales on appendix and also had inter-State trade transactions, no tax liability on that count arises, apart from the fact that the petitioner-firm, which was entitled to exemption as per annexure-P2 for the sales of ayurvedic medicines has also not been considered and consequently there was no justification for levying the penalty. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 31st May, 1982 (annexure-P5), rejected the same mainly on the ground that as the petitioner did not avail of the several opportunities given to him, no interference with the ex parte order of assessment is called for.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

6. Thereafter the petitioner, vide annexure-P6 dated 12th July, 1982, filed suo motu revision under Section 39(1)(a) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for the aforesaid period 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, setting therein the necessary figures as also the grounds on which the petitioner wanted the Commissioner to exercise the revisional powers. However, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, in exercise of the delegated power rejected the same, vide annexure-P7 dated 28th April, 1983, in a cryptic manner without considering the pleas raised by the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

7. Thereafter the petitioner, vide annexure-P8 dated 7th May, 1983, submitted an application for exercise of suo motu revisionary powers under Section 39(1-A) reiterating the same grievances after giving the necessary details. However, the respondent No. 1, vide annexure-P9 dated 25th August, 1983, in a similar fashion, rejected the same. Hence this petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

8. The respondents in their returns have submitted that in the absence of knowledge it is denied that the petitioner-firm is registered with the Industries Department as small-scale industry and, therefore, as the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary condition in column (4) of the Schedule of the said notification, (annexure-P2), he is not eligible for exemption, that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and ask for several adjournments numbering 16 and that is how the assessing authority relying on the documents seized by the Flying Squad and using his best judgment as provided in Section 18(4)(a) and (c) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act has assessed the petitioner accordingly, though it would appear that in the order, annexure-P3, the best judgment assessment appears to have been made under Section 18(4)(d) of the said Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

9. Further, according to the respondents, as the petitioner in support of his claim for deduction of inter-State sales or sales under the notification; annexure-P2, did not file any documents declaration and C forms, etc., the petitioner cannot make a grievance that the best judgment assessment is not proper. They have also denied that the assessing authority had any bias or mala fide intention against the petitioner. Therefore, there being no material nor any C forms on record to prove that any sale made by the petitioner came within the purview of inter-State sale and the petitioner having failed to submit appendix in forms I, II and III, the assessing authority was quite justified in treating the sales as intra-State sales and not allowing any exemption therein as provided in the notification. Therefore, as the burden lay upon the assessee to prove that the said sales were inter-State sales, in absence of proof thereof no blame can be put up upon the assessing authority. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that even before the revisional authority the petitioner had merely made a mention of the figure of inter-State sales, but he never substantiated the same by means of evidence, vouchers, railway receipts numbers and other relevant evidence. It is also further contended that according to the provisions of Section 39-A of the said Act a dealer shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary before the appellate or revisional authority, except where the material sought to be adduced in evidence, which the assessing authority had wrongly refused to admit or which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him before the assessing authority or for the production of which adequate time was not given by the assessing authority, and the petitioner having not made out any such ground, it cannot be said that the revisional authority has failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in accordance with law as the impugned order passed by the revisional authorities clearly mention that they have gone through the record.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

10. It is also their contention that no such fresh hearing is contemplated before the revisional authority in case of a suo motu revision as the Deputy Commissioner under the delegated powers under Section 39(1)(b) of the said Act has passed the impugned order on the basis of the available material. Similarly the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 39(1-A) in exercise of the suo motu revisional powers has used his discretion for his own satisfaction. It is, therefore, contended that there is variation and difference in the language used in Section 39(1) and Section 39(1-A) in relation to the mode of invoking jurisdiction. Therefore, under Section 39(1-A) it is the sole discretion of the Commissioner to call for any record or otherwise subject to his satisfaction in the given facts and circumstances of a given case and pass the necessary orders, which has properly been done in the present case and, therefore, in fact when an order itself is not necessary, there is no question of passing a detailed reasoned order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that even though several opportunities were given to the petitioner by the assessing authority about which he had no grievance, still on the basis of the documents seized from the possession of the petitioner which were in his possession, while deciding the case of the petitioner on the basis of best judgment assessment he had a legal obligation to go through the same. He further submitted that the inter-State sales entered into by the petitioner during that period had to be considered separately under the Central Sales Tax Act and he ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner on the basis of C forms as also for the sales under declaration which were exempted from levy of sales tax under the notification, annexure-P2, was bound to consider the same legally and he could not mix up in fixing the liability of the petitioner under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act by one and the same order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

12. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the assessing authority had knowledge that the petitioner-firm had effected inter-State sales on the basis of which the petitioner-firm was also assessed earlier for the period 10th May, 1976, to 31st March, 1977, and for the period 1st April, 1977, to 31st March, 1978, vide orders dated 25th September, 1981, and 8th June, 1981, about which the learned Government Advocate did not dispute. He further submitted that the notification, exhibit-P2, was amended by a notification dated 31st March, 1978, whereby the exemption was extended up to 31st March, 1979, as reported in [1978] 11 VKN 41 in item 41 of the Schedule. He, therefore, submitted that a similar duty was cast on the revisional authority to see that the petitioner is taxed properly in accordance with law and thus the revisional authority has committed an illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in not at all considering the legal points raised by the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

13. In support of his submissions the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported in Jagdish Prasad Pooranchand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1985] 58 STC 47 , Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Imphalsha . (London), Mirzapur v. Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Circle I, Varanasi : [1977]110ITR722(All) Union Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1968]70ITR45(Cal) C. Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda : [1980]122ITR610(Guj) Raj Brothers Agencies v. Board of Revenue [1972] 30 STC 410 (Mad.) Board of Revenue, Madras v. Raj Brothers Agencies : [1973]3SCR492 State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad.) Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur : [1965]57ITR349(SC) Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar of Rewa , Bharat Engineering & Foundry Works v. State of M.P. Ramgopal Nathuram Bhutra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1984) 10 STC 38 (MP) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer v. Har Narain Mohan Lal and L. AR. Arunachalam Pillai and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 109 (Mad.) .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

14. The learned Government Advocate did not dispute this fact that notification, annexure-P2, has been amended as mentioned above, according to which the said exemption has been extended up to 31st March, 1979, as also the fact that in column No. 4(4) of the said notification the words 'or at any time before assessment' have been added. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner-firm could furnish along with the returns a statement in the form shown in appendix-II showing the particulars of his sales effected against the aforesaid declaration or at any time before assessment. Thus, because of the extension of period for exemption, coupled with the fact that the dealer could furnish the statement as mentioned in column 4(4)(a) at any time before assessment, the assessing authority was bound to consider these amendments and, therefore, before passing the impugned order, annexure-P3, the assessing authority was bound to take these amendments into consideration which obviously it has failed to notice. Therefore, the exemption already granted to the petitioner-firm having been already extended up to 31st March, 1979, by the said amendment, the assessing authority has committed an illegality in taxing the petitioner on those sales for which he was entitled to the exemption.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

15. It is no doubt true that the petitioner-firm as per annexure-P2 normally ought to have produced the certificate of registration referred to in column (1) before the assessing authority at the time of assessment and also should have furnished the statement along with the returns as contemplated by column 4(4), but in view of the amendment, the petitioner-firm could produce such statement at any time before the assessment. Therefore, it was the duty of the assessing authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish the statement before making the assessment. Similarly he ought to have taken a judicial notice of the amendment whereby the exemption was extended up to 31st March, 1979, even though the petitioner had not submitted the returns as required by law as the assessing authority ought to have gone through the accounts and documents seized from the possession of the petitioner by the Flying Squad before making the assessment. We may point out at this stage that the petitioner or his counsel should have brought to the notice of the assessing authority the subsequent amendment in the notification which had extended the exemption up to 31st March, 1979.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

16. Similarly when the assessing authority had given several opportunities to the petitioner, it was his duty also to point out from those account books seized by the Flying Squad regarding such sales effected by him during the period under assessment. But because of this lapse of the petitioner the assessing authority cannot be allowed to urge that it was ignorant about the said amendments which had a binding legal effect. Therefore, at least so far as such sales on which the petitioner was legally entitled for exemption from sales tax, it is clear that those sales have been illegally included in the taxable turnover.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

17. Similarly, so far as inter-State sales are concerned, the material regarding the same was before the assessing authority from the accounts of the petitioner, but it is apparent that it has ignored the same. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner had not submitted the C form certificates regarding those inter-State sales effected during that period. But admittedly so far as fixing the tax liability on the inter-State sales are concerned under the Central Sales Tax Act, separate proceedings ought to have been taken, which admittedly has not been done in the present case and, therefore, sales within the State and inter-State sales could not be mixed up in one and the same assessment, as it was not disputed that for inter-State sales separate assessment has to be made. Therefore, in such a situation when the assessing authority also wanted to fasten the liability of sales tax in respect of inter-State sales in absence of the C forms it ought to have given notice to the petitioner before passing the assessment order calling upon him to furnish evidence regarding C form, because as held in the decision reported in 1981 JLJ 168 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajjulal Motilal, Guna) production of C form under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was not a condition precedent for claiming exemption.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

18. This takes us to the orders passed by the revisional authorities. In the revision memo, annexure-P4, filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (respondent No. 2) he had enclosed therewith form No. 27 in duplicate, grounds of revision in duplicate, demand notice, assessment order form and order of assessment in original, power of attorney, stay application and statement of trading account and tax liability. In the statement of case the petitioner has mentioned that the petitioner-firm has effected mostly sales on appendix and no liability of tax arises. It has also been stated therein that as the petitioner-firm is engaged in manufacture and sale of ayurvedic medicines, for failure to grant exemption regarding such sales a heavy demand of tax of Rs. 30,439 has been illegally fastened upon the petitioner. However the revisional authority, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 31st May, 1982, annexure-P5, passed under Section 39(1) of the said Act has also without giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the legal objections raised by the petitioner, rejected the same by concentrating mainly on this fact that though several opportunities were given to the petitioner, they did not take active interest in those proceedings.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

19. Thereafter the suo motu revision filed by the petitioner under Section 39(1)(a) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (annexure P-6), again gives the details as also the enclosures including the list of inter-State sales, appendix, etc.,... But it appears the order dated 28th April, 1983 (annexure-P7), has been passed in a mechanical manner without carefully applying its mind and without going through the legal points raised therein.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

20. Thereafter the petitioner filed another suo motu revision under Section 39(1A) before the Commissioner, respondent No. 1, dated 7th May, 1983, annexure-P8, wherein he has taken the same grounds and pleas. But, in a similar fashion order, annexure-P9, dated 25th August, 1983, has been passed without giving any chance of hearing to the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that similar powers of revision find place in Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with almost similar wordings and in the decisions reported in Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1967]66ITR647(All) M. Chettyappan v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax : [1977]110ITR684(Mad) O.C.M. Ltd. (London) v. Income-tax Officer : [1977]110ITR722(All) Union Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1968]70ITR45(Cal) and C. Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1980]122ITR610(Guj) the scope of revisional powers in such a situation have been defined, which clearly indicate that such powers are wide and even in such revisions opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

22. So far as the provisions under the Sales Tax Act are concerned, regarding the scope of revision in such cases the learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decisions reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar , Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works v. State of M.P. Ramgopal Nathuram Bhutra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1984) 10 STC 38 (MP) Jagdish Prasad Pooranchand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore , Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Imphalsha Manufacturing Co., Indore Raj Brothers Agencies v. Board of Revenue [1972] 30 STC 410 (Mad.) Board of Revenue, Madras v. Raj Brothers Agencies [1973] 31 STC 434 which arose out of Raj Brothers Agencies v. Board of Revenue [1972] 30 STC 410 (Mad.), State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad.) and contended that it has been the consistent view of this Court and several other High Courts that the scope of revision is not restricted and Rule 60 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, makes it obligatory to issue notice before passing any such order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the case be remanded to respondent No. 1 to decide the suo motu revision in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the legal pleas raised by the petitioner as the jurisdiction in such cases has to be exercised in a proper and lawful manner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

24. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand contended that no claim has been made out by the petitioner for exemption. He further submitted that it was, therefore, not necessary to give any notice to the petitioner even by the revisional authorities. He also submitted that the petitioner before the revisional authorities has not shown any sufficient cause though the petitioner was given several adjournments. He also submitted that the petitioner did not take any steps as required by column (4) of annexure-P2. It was also urged that Section 39(1-A) as also Section 39-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act were inserted with effect from 1st October, 1978. Therefore, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner prior to this period are not attracted. He also submitted that there is difference in the wording of Section 39(1-A), which deals with powers of the Commissioner, according to which it is provided that he may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made as he considers necessary, whereas Section 39-A relates to additional evidence on appeal or revision, according to which he has the authority and jurisdiction to reject such a prayer for additional evidence, unless sufficient cause is shown He, therefore, submitted that in the present case no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that these provisions are analogous to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, and in support of this submission he placed reliance on the decisions reported in (Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur), [1978] 41 STC 41 (Mad.) (Dunlop India Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road, Madras) as also : [1973]3SCR492 (Board of Revenue v. Raj Brothers Agencies), which has also been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. But the first two decisions are distinguishable. It was further urged that if such lapses of the petitioner are allowed to be condoned, who did not bother despite having been given sufficient opportunities by the assessing authority, it will be a handle in the hands of every assessee not to assist the assessing authority. This submission, no doubt, has great force and we do not at all mean to suggest that if an assessee is at fault certainly he is not entitled to be shown any indulgence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

25. But the facts of the present case are somewhat different. In the present case the assessing authority has passed the order of assessment on the basis of the documents seized from the possession of the petitioner by the Flying Squad and has also taken those into consideration, but not properly and in accordance with law. If the assessing authority felt that the petitioner was not entitled for exemption for the relevant assessment period as per annexure-P2 or that he wanted to tax him for the inter-State sales by the same assessment, at least for that clarification he ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. Similarly even before the revisional authorities the petitioner had submitted the necessary enclosures, which ought to have been taken into consideration by the revisional authorities while exercising their jurisdiction. But, it appears, that they have only laid stress upon the fact that the petitioner was given more than sufficient opportunity, but they have failed to consider this fact that the legal pleas which were taken before them required a hearing for which the petitioner should have been given an opportunity. This is not a case where even before the revisional authorities there was no material or that the averments made were quite vague so that by a mere perusal the revisional authority could communicate to the assessee that no case was made out for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the mere fact that provisions of Sections 39(1-A) and 39-A were brought into force subsequently, which admittedly were in force when the assessment order or the revisional orders were passed, those provisions were attracted to the facts of the present case and, therefore, also it was necessary for them to give an opportunity and chance of hearing to the petitioner regarding the legal pleas raised by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

26. The gist of the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner clearly points out that the scope of revision is not quite limited or restricted and especially in those cases where a legal plea is taken, the authorities are bound to consider the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity before passing the final order. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner had placed the necessary material before the revisional authorities. Even assuming that the C forms for the inter-State sales were not actually filed by the petitioner before the revisional authorities also, it could ask the petitioner to produce the same as has been held in the decision reported in 1981 JLJ 168 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rajjulal Motilal).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]

27. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents, annexure P-3, annexure-P5, annexure-P7 and annexure-P9, are quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No. 3, the assessing authority, to assess and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions regarding the plea of exemption in annexure-P2 for the relevant period as also the exemptions claimed regarding the inter-State sales. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as also the lapse on the part of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim his own costs, but he is bound to pay costs of the respondents. Counsel's fee Rs. 750 (seven hundred and fifty). The petitioner shall deposit the costs of the respondents in this Court within a period of two weeks from today.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]