Court Upholds Assessment Orders, Rejects Petitioner's Claim

The court upheld ex parte assessment orders under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for the period in question, rejecting the petitioner's claim of not being involved in the kirana and foodgrains business. Despite opportunities to prove otherwise, the court found the assessment orders valid based on existing evidence. The petitioner's failure to appeal or revise the orders further barred the court from entertaining the writ petition. Introducing additional material was deemed impermissible, and the court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of maintaining the assessment orders without granting costs to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of ex parte assessment under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Challenge against orders of assessment for the periods in question.
3. Allegation of error in determining business activities.
4. Failure to challenge assessment orders through appeal or revision.
5. Admissibility of additional material in a writ of certiorari.
6. Merits of additional material in challenging assessment orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an ex parte assessment order passed under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for the period between 1st April, 1973, and 31st March, 1978. The petitioner contested the assessment, claiming not to be engaged in the kirana and foodgrains business, asserting that it was conducted by his father. Despite the plea, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the original finding but remanded the matter for fresh tax and penalty determination.

2. Subsequently, fresh assessment orders were passed for the mentioned period and another period from 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979. The petitioner did not appeal against these orders. Seeking to challenge the assessments, the petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the orders dated 16th November, 1981, and 28th February, 1981.

3. The petitioner argued that the authorities erred in finding that he was involved in the kirana and grain business. However, the court noted that such determination is a question of fact. Despite several opportunities provided to substantiate his claim, the petitioner failed to do so, leading to the finding being upheld as a fact-based decision.

4. The court highlighted that the finding of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is perverse or lacks evidence. In this case, the court found the finding to be based on material mentioned in the impugned orders, indicating no perversity.

5. Regarding the order dated 16th November, 1981, the court noted that the petitioner did not challenge it through appeal or revision as provided by the Act. Thus, the court opined that the writ petition could not be entertained against that order due to the failure to follow statutory remedies.

6. The petitioner sought to introduce additional material to support the claim of not conducting the kirana and grain business. However, the court held that a writ of certiorari is limited to the existing record and does not allow for the introduction of new material not presented before the lower authorities.

7. Even upon considering the additional material presented by the petitioner, the court found that it did not impact the question of whether the petitioner was engaged in the kirana and grain business during the relevant assessment periods. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in challenging the assessment orders based on the additional material.

8. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of upholding the assessment orders. The petitioner was not granted any costs, and the security amount was ordered to be refunded.

---