TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1955 (4) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring a turn- over of Rs. 1,93,307-1-9. On 25th August, 1954, the petitioner's counsel asked the Sales Tax Officer to give him a date for producing his account books. This opportunity was allowed to the petitioner and the account books were produced by him on 28th September, 1954. Thereafter the following assessment order, purporting to be an order under section 7(2) of the Act, was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dehra Dun, on 15th November, 1954: "Messrs. Northern India Lime Marketing Association, Dehra Dun, are paying sales tax on previous years' basis. They had filed a return under section 7(1) for the year ending 31st March, 1954. Their accounts were finally checked on 28th September, 1954. The account books produced before me were: a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-6-6 only. It is therefore obvious that they have not shown the actual amount of sales made by them during the year 1953-54 and the turnover shown as sales is not their actual turnover. By adding about 20% for concealed sales to the turnover shown in books, their turnover for 1953-54 is estimated at Rs. 2,30,000. Sales tax on this at the rate of three pies per rupee comes to Rs. 3,593-12-0. They shall deposit Rs. 1,797-12-0 within 16 days of receipt of this order and the balance in two equal instalments of Rs. 898 each by the end of January 1955 and April 1955." The present petition was filed on 21st December, 1954, and on the same date the petitioner obtained an ad interim order restraining the opposite party, the Sales Tax Officer, De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erscription of the order was apparently due to a slip of the pen. There is no doubt that a writ of certiorari will issue when the decision of an inferior court or tribunal is erroneous in law, and the error is apparent on the face of the record: Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaq(1). The error in the present case however is not an error of law since it is not an error in any finding on a question of law. It is merely a clerical error. The first ground on which the order in question is assailed has there- fore no force. The other ground put forward on behalf of the petitioner appears however to be well-founded. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Sales Tax Officer it is averred that on 28th September, 1954, the petitioner's counsel produced sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rment in his counter-affidavit. There is no doubt that the order speaks of discrepancy between the amount of sales and the amount of bills debited to the United Commercial Bank, Dehra Dun, but there is no mention in the order that the petitioner or his counsel was asked to explain this discrepancy and that on being so asked they were unable to satisfy the Sales Tax Officer on that point. What appears from the order is that on finding the aforesaid dis- crepancy in the books of account of the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer made certain enquiries which enquiries, according to his order, completed on 6th November, 1954. The order shows that it was only as a result of these enquiries that the Sales Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the....