TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (9) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art of the turnover for that assessment year had escaped assessment and it was asked to furnish a return of its entire turnover and to produce its account books. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was required to furnish a list specifying the several purchases of liquid gold from two concerns, M/s. Madan Mohan Dammamal (Private) Ltd., and M/s. Kunjilal Hardayal, both of Firozabad. The list was furnished by the petitioner. On 23rd March, 1965, the petitioner was also informed by the Sales Tax Officer that the assessment on escaped turnover was proposed under the Central Sales Tax Act and not under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Despite this information, the petitioner wrote on 8th April, 1965, to the Sales Tax Officer enquiring whether the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that the petitioner is not liable to the assessment of Central sales tax because of section 8. The third contention is that the levy cannot be justified by reference to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. And, finally it is urged that the glass bangles sold by the petitioner are the very same articles purchased by it from the manufacturer and no part of the glass bangles sold can be said to have been manufactured by the petitioner. I shall deal with the last contention first. The submission of the petitioner is that the notification refers to a class of goods, namely glass bangles, and it cannot be said that what is sold by the petitioner does not fall in this class. The submission is that inasmuch as what was purchased by the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le sold. There may be two specific articles, one derived by manufacture from the other, and yet both may belong to the same class. If the first article has been imported from outside Uttar Pradesh, its sale will attract sales tax at the point of sale by the importer. If the second article has been manufactured from the first article in Uttar Pradesh, its sale will attract sales tax at the point of sale by the manufacturer. Reliance was placed by the petitioner upon Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Chaman Das Jhanwar DasSales Tax Reference No. 77 of 1959, decided by Desai, C.J., and K.B. Asthana, J., on March 25, 1963. That decision, in my judgment, has no bearing upon the present case. The only question raised in that case was whether a ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has taken its place. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Badri Prasad Prabha Shanker v. Sales Tax Commissioner[1963] 14 S.T.C. 208., where the meaning of the word "manufacture" has been discussed. The question whether the original article has been converted into a commercially different article is a question essentially of fact and one which appropriately falls for consideration before the Sales Tax Officer. It is in the assessment proceeding before the Sales Tax Officer that evidence may be led for the purpose of showing whether the article sold by the petitioner is not commercially different from the article purchased by it. The Legislature specifically constituted the Sales Tax Officer as the assessing authority and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose of assessing the escaped turnover liable to Central sales tax, merely requires the Sales Tax Officer to have reason to believe that the whole or part of the turnover has escaped assessment. Whether the turnover has actually escaped in fact or in law is not a consideration which determines the validity of the notice. So long as the Sales Tax Officer has reason to believe that the turnover or part of it has escaped assessment, he has jurisdiction to issue the notice. He must bona fide have reason for that belief, and there must be material upon which he comes to that belief. He must act reasonably and without arbitrariness. But that is not to say that it is only when he rightly comes to the conclusion that the turnover or part of it has e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has no difficulty in understanding the purpose of the notice its validity cannot successfully be impugned. In State of Orissa and Another v. M/s. Chakobhai Ghelabhai and Co.[1960] 11 S.T.C. 716; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 284., the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the validity of a notice issued in Form No. VI. It was a combined form for the purposes of sections 11 and 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, and accordingly contained certain recitals some of which pertained to section 11 and others to section 12. The notice was intended to be under section 12(5), but the recitals pertaining to the requirements of section 11 were not scored out. The Supreme Court observed that the omission to score out the unnecessary words did not make the ....