Best judgment assessment under sales tax law upheld where return was filed without full admitted tax payment.

A return under the Assam General Sales Tax Act is valid only if filed in conformity with the Act and Rules, including payment of the admitted tax in the prescribed manner and within time. Where the dealer failed to make full payment despite repeated notices and extensions, the return was treated as non-compliant and the assessing officer could proceed to best judgment assessment under section 17(5). The court also noted that notices, warnings, and further time satisfied the requirement of opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, no equitable basis was shown for interference under Article 226, and the statutory assessment and recovery process was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a return furnished without full payment of admitted tax could be treated as a valid return so as to preclude assessment to the best of judgment under section 17(5) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. (ii) Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted in the face of the statutory procedure and remedy.

Issue (i): Whether a return furnished without full payment of admitted tax could be treated as a valid return so as to preclude assessment to the best of judgment under section 17(5) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required payment of tax in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, along with the return. The dealer was liable to monthly filing and payment under section 16 and rule 25, and the return contemplated by the Act and Rules was a complete return accompanied by payment of the tax due. The dealer was repeatedly called upon to comply, was granted further time, and was warned of best judgment assessment and penalty. The return ultimately filed was not accompanied by full payment of admitted tax and was therefore not a return in conformity with the Act and the Rules. In those circumstances, the assessing officer was entitled to proceed under section 17(5), and the requirement of opportunity of hearing was satisfied by the notices and extensions granted.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 17(5) was valid and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted in the face of the statutory procedure and remedy.

Analysis: The record showed repeated opportunities given to the dealer, compliance failures on his part, and a reasoned assessment made in accordance with the Act and the Rules. In view of the conduct of the dealer and the statutory framework, no equitable ground was shown for writ interference.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and recovery action were sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A return under the sales tax law must be a complete return in conformity with the statutory payment requirement; if the dealer, despite repeated opportunities, fails to file a compliant return or comply with the notice, the assessing officer may validly make a best judgment assessment after following the prescribed procedure.

---