Reasonable hearing, enquiry-based assessment and garnishee recovery upheld where notice was served and demand had matured.

Service of notice and recorded non-appearance meant the ex parte assessment was not vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, because no valid adjournment request was shown. The note also explains that assessment under the sales tax recovery provision was competent where the assessing authority acted on enquiry material and information already within the dealer's knowledge. On recovery, attachment of bank accounts through garnishee proceedings was treated as lawful because demand had matured for payment, the attachments preceded the appeal and stay request, and no automatic statutory bar arose from the mere filing or proposed filing of such proceedings. Limited relief was granted only by directing release on security deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ex parte assessment was vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing; (ii) whether the assessment could validly be made under section 45(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994; (iii) whether the attachment of the bank accounts by way of garnishee proceedings was lawful.

Issue (i): whether the ex parte assessment was vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing

Analysis: The assessment record showed service of notice and recorded that no one appeared and no further adjournment petition was filed. The materials did not substantiate the claim that an authorised representative had appeared with a valid adjournment petition. A company could not seek adjournment through an unauthorised person, and on the facts it was not possible to hold that any valid opportunity was denied.

Conclusion: The assessment was not invalid for want of reasonable opportunity of hearing and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment could validly be made under section 45(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994

Analysis: The assessment order itself showed that it was made on the basis of enquiry and information received by the assessing authority. The enquiry report was within the knowledge of the dealer and had not been disputed. On that footing, the precondition for action under sub-section (2) was satisfied and there was no illegality in invoking that provision.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 45(2) was held to be competent and valid.

Issue (iii): whether the attachment of the bank accounts by way of garnishee proceedings was lawful

Analysis: The notice of demand had been issued with time for payment in compliance with the Act, and the assessed dues became recoverable after expiry of the stipulated date. The attachment orders were found to have been issued before the appeal and stay application were filed and before intimation of such filing reached the assessing authority. The Act did not create any automatic bar on recovery merely because an appeal or stay application was contemplated or later filed. In the special facts, the resort to section 57 was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The bank account attachments were held to be lawful, though the accounts were directed to be released on deposit of the balance amount as security.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment and the attachments substantially failed, but limited interim relief was granted by directing release of the attached accounts on deposit of the balance demand and by requiring early disposal of the stay application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notice of hearing and demand have been duly served, assessment under the relevant recovery machinery is valid if based on enquiry information within the assessee's knowledge, and recovery by attachment is not barred merely by the filing or proposed filing of an appeal or stay application, absent any statutory prohibition.

---