1999 (2) TMI 646 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of sales tax demand notice upheld despite acknowledged defect; Tribunal orders rectification without invalidation

United Commercial Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Another Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Burrabazar Circle and Another

The Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the validity of a notice of demand issued under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Despite ... - Issues:1. Validity of notice of demand under section 11(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 read with rule 55(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.2. Compliance with the timeframe for payment specified in the notice of demand.3. Impact of defects in the notice of demand on the appellate and revisional orders.Analysis:1. The application raised concerns about the legality of the notice of demand issued under section 11(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The notice in question was issued following an ex parte order of assessment by the Commercial Tax Officer, demanding additional sales tax and turnover tax without disclosing the basis for the assessment. The applicant contended that the notice of demand did not comply with the statutory provisions, particularly in terms of the timeframe for payment specified in the notice.2. The applicants argued that the notice of demand was defective as it directed payment on a date that did not comply with the minimum thirty-day period required by law. The notice was received by the applicant on November 19, 1990, while it was dated November 3, 1990. The Tribunal acknowledged the defect in the notice concerning the fixed date of payment, concluding that the notice was indeed defective in this regard.3. Despite the defect in the notice of demand, the Tribunal held that the entire notice did not become invalid. It was established through precedents that a notice with a defect in the fixed date of payment could be rectified by issuing a fresh notice of demand with a corrected payment deadline. The Tribunal emphasized that the defect in the notice did not render the assessment order or the subsequent appellate and revisional orders void. The applicant had not raised this issue before the appellate and revisional authorities, and the Tribunal found no justification for reopening the assessment based solely on the defect in the notice of demand.4. The Tribunal dismissed the application, directing the Commercial Tax Officer to comply with the appellate order by issuing a modified demand notice after fresh computation within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of rectifying defects in notices of demand while emphasizing that such defects did not invalidate the assessment or subsequent orders unless specifically challenged during the appeal process.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and reasoning in addressing the legal concerns surrounding the notice of demand and its implications on the overall assessment process.