TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (2) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had excluded a sum of Rs. 6,66,418.36 being the sale proceeds of 28 vehicles sold at Solan and not at Lucknow. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that out of 28 vehicles, 24 vehicles valued at Rs. 5,84,252.35 had been sold within U.P. and he, therefore, enhanced the assessee's net turnover to that extent. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) carried out certain investigation to find out if the vehicles alleged to have been sold by the assessee at Solan were really sold at Solan or were sold inside U.P. In the course of such investigation statement on oath of the manager of K.T. Financiers, Hazratganj, Lucknow, who had financed certain purchasers of the vehicles, was taken and likewise statements of some purchasers were also recorded. The Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) submitted a report to the assessing authority on the basis of which the Sales Tax Officer held that out of 28 vehicles, 24 vehicles alleged to have been sold at Solan were in fact sold inside Uttar Pradesh. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had applied for a copy of the report of the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.), and had also requested that the witnesses, who were examined by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te opportunity to rebut the same. The question that would arise in such a case would be as to whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee can be said to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the case against him. It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that a witness examined by the Sales Tax Officer can never be summoned for cross-examination. The question would always depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the instant case we find from the assessment order that the assessee in support of its claim had produced the following documentary evidence: (a) In the goods account the vehicles were shown to have been transferred to Solan branch. (b) Temporary transit insurance was also obtained for sending the vehicles to Solan from Bombay. (c) Export charges for transporting vehicles to Solan were also debited and necessary vouchers were also obtained. (d) Octroi receipt for vehicles were obtained at Solan octroi post for the entry of each vehicle. (e) Cash memos. were issued on the printed forms of Solan branch. (f) On delivery chalans of Solan branch, signatures were obtained from the purchasers in support of their plea that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax Act the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before the result is arrived at. In other words, the assessee would have a right to inspect the record and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in rebuttal." In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal[1954] 26 I.T.R. 775 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court set aside an assessment order where this fundamental principle of natural justice was violated. We are of opinion that the same principle would apply to the proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The provisions relating to the assessment contained in section 7 read with rule 41 are in pari materia with the corresponding provisions of assessment under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, an Income-tax Officer has all the powers of a civil court for purposes of enforcing the attendance of any witness etc. and similar powers have been conferred on the Sales Tax Officer under rule 75 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, which provides that the Sales Tax Officer...shall have the same pow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow and their examination would not have served the useful purpose in view of the overwhelming evidence with the department. The application was, therefore, rejected." To ask the assessee to file a written statement is not the same thing as to give him an opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal. The fact that certain witnesses had changed their original statement or other witnesses were likely to do so is no ground for refusing to summon them for cross-examination. In fact this state of affairs shows very clearly that the testimony of those witnesses required to be tested by cross-examination before it could be used against the assessee. The revising authority while dealing with the contention of the assessee has observed in its revisional order: "It was argued on behalf of the opposite party that certain witnesses gave wrong statements behind the back of the opposite party. If that was so, it was open to the opposite party to produce their affidavits or subsequent statements in order to controvert the testimony before the assessing officer. This was not done. I am of opinion that full opportunity was given to the opposite party to meet the case against him and he is not e....