TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1951 (1) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made to the best of their respective judgments?" The applicants before us are registered dealers and are required to file returns quarterly. A registered dealer has to file a return under Section 10 of the Act. The applicants maintain their accounts according to the Marwari Dewali year. They did not file their returns for the two quarters ended Kartic Badi 15, 2002 (corresponding with the period 13th April, 1945, to 4th November, 1945). The assessing authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta (Central), issued a notice on 20th February, 1946, directing the applicants to attend in person or by an agent at the office of the Commercial Tax Officer and there to produce, or cause there to be produced, at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed two other appeals before the Commissioner against the assessment, orders in respect, of the four subsequent quarters. The Commissioner, by his order, dated 28th October, 1948, dealt with all the three appeals together and in exercise of his powers under Section 20(2) of the Act, reduced the assessment in respect of the two quarters in question (i.e., for the period from 13th April, 1945, to 4th November, 1945) by estimating the taxable turnover at 7.5 per cent. of the gross turnover, instead of at ten per cent. as estimated by the Assistant Commissioner. Against this order of the Commissioner the applicants filed a petition before the Board of Revenue. The Commissioner's orders in respect of this period were upheld by the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kartic Badi 15, 2001, in which the percentage is stated to be 7.5, 2.4 and 3.4 respectively. Referring to these figures learned Advocate said that the order made by the tax authorities was wrong. But it should be noted that the applicants did not in any way help the tax authorities to arrive at a correct figure. They did not produce any account books nor help them otherwise. Under these circumstances the authorities had got to assess to the best of their judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer. What they have got to do in such cases has been laid down by the Privy Council in Income-tax Commissioner v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola(1). The relevant observation of their Lordships at pp. 114-5 is set out below: "There remains for consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome extent arbitrary.......Their Lordships can find no justification in the language of the Act for holding that an assessment made by an officer under Section 23, sub-section (4), without conducting a local inquiry and without recording the details and results of that inquiry cannot have been made to the best of his judgment within the meaning of the section." These observations fully apply to the case under consideration. In this case the best judgment assessment was made under Section 11 of the Act. In this particular case the Assistant Commissioner made his best judgment assessment and the relevant observations from his finding are as follows: "Thus, in the absence of any reliable data, I have no other alternative but to proceed to asse....