Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal
Reported in : (2001)123STC599Tribunal
1. In this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the applicant has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Durgapur Circle, reopening under Section 9A(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, the deemed assessments for the four periods of 12 months each, ending March 31, 1989, March 31, 1990, March 31, 1991 and March 31, 1992.2. There is no dispute regarding important facts. The applicant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and is a dealer registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short "the 1941 Act") and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short "the 1954 Act").3. The applicant had filed returns both under the 1941 Act and the 1954 Act all along and had paid due sales tax in time, but in the returns filed under the 1954 Act the applicant had kept the return for turnover tax blank without filling it up, He was not informed of any assessments made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal
Reported in : (2001)124STC452Tribunal
1. By the instant application the applicant who is carrying on business in the trade name of Tapan Kumar Sett as its proprietor, challenges the validity of (1) a notice in form IX under Rule 79 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, (2) the order whereby a deemed assessment for the four quarters ending on March 31, 1991 was reopened by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No.1) and also (3) the revisional order of the respondent No. 2 passed on the revisional application filed against the order of the respondent No. 1. He questions the legality of the notice on the grounds, viz., (1) that it was issued in the trade name of his business and not in his name, and (2) that notice under Rule 79 has nothing to do with a deemed assessment. He challenges the two orders on the ground that short payment turnover tax (TOT) and non-payment of interest cannot be the grounds for reopening of a deemed assessment.2. The respondents in their affidavit-in~opposition defend the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!