1951 (7) TMI 12 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Upholds Sales Tax Decision; Applicants' Request Denied. Compliance Failure Leads to Rejection.

The High Court upheld the decision of the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, denying the applicants' request to refer specific questions to the High Court. The ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the election of assessment year by an assessee.2. Authority of Sales Tax Officer to assess an assessee to the best of his judgment for late filed turnover return.3. Discretion of Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, to refer questions to the High Court.Analysis:The case involved an application under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, requesting the High Court to direct the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, to refer specific questions regarding the assessment process. The applicants, engaged in business as merchants in Kanpur, were assessed under Section 7(3) of the Act based on an estimated turnover. Despite depositing cheques towards tax payment, they failed to communicate their election of the assessment year to the Sales Tax Officer. Additionally, they did not file a turnover return within the prescribed time, leading to the Sales Tax Officer passing an assessment order based on his judgment. The applicants did not appeal this order, but later sought revision, which was dismissed, confirming the assessment order based on the previous year's turnover.The main contention raised during the revision was that the assessment should have been based on the current year's turnover rather than the previous year. However, this argument was rejected by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. The applicants then applied to have specific questions referred to the High Court, but the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, refused, citing the applicants' failure to comply with filing requirements in a timely manner. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the deposited cheques did not substitute the mandatory turnover returns as required by the Act and relevant rules.Ultimately, the High Court rejected the application, ordering the applicants to bear the costs. It was noted that the application did not include the order of the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, which was a procedural error. The Court highlighted the absence of specific rules for filing applications under the Sales Tax Act and directed adherence to rules applicable to Income-tax References until such regulations are framed. The decision was communicated to relevant Bar Associations and judges for information.