TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (9) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emises of the petitioner was searched and the revenue claims the seizure of certain incriminating materials. The account books, the incriminating materials and the records seized in the course of the search made in 1964 were admittedly kept with the department till August, 1966, when a part of such seized books only were returned to the petitioner. I shall advert to this later. Consequent upon such seizure of records and materials, the revenue by a notice issued under both the Acts as above called upon the petitioner to state his objections regarding certain proposals of assessment by then mooted by the department in their notices issued on 11th January, 1965. The petitioner was called upon to file objections to the said proposals. In his o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent method under the Central Sales Tax Act. Incidentally, he challenged the proposal to assess under the Central Sales Tax Act as well. Venkatadri, J., in Writ Petition No. 1014 of 1965, whilst leaving the petitioner to get his appropriate relief in the matter of the main assessment order by approaching the appellate authority before whom an appeal has already been filed, held that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy a penalty as indicated in the order and, therefore, quashed that part of the order concerning the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner. He relied upon a decision of this court reported in Shah & Co. v. State of Madras[1967] 20 S.T.C. 146. The net result of the disposal of this writ petition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een that the petitioner, no doubt, objected to the proposals in the pre-assessment notice, but the gravamen of the charge was that he was unable to state his real objections thereto without recourse to the books of account and the records which were, by then, admittedly with the department. I am unable to agree that in the circumstances of this case when the petitioner got back a portion of the books only in October, 1966, and a major portion of the balance of the records thereafter, he did have a real opportunity to state his objections to the pre-assessment notice in the year 1965. But it transpires that the revenue did not take up the matter further, with the result the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal became final. It is only t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prohibition, but in the light of the facts already noticed by me, he would certainly be entitled to certain directions so that justice can not only be said to have been done but seem to have been done. The petitioner, if he filed his objections in 1965, could have done so only without reference to the books and records. I am unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal that the question, whether the petitioner had an effective opportunity to state his objections to the pre-assessment notice, does not arise. It does very much arise because even the objection-statement made by the petitioner is a pointer to the effect that the principles of natural justice are being violated even then, since he is called upon to make a statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be fixed by him for the purpose and thereafter proceed with the assessment under the relevant provisions of law. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that he would not raise any plea of limitation as well in the matter of rehearing or the reappraisal of the proposal to assess and in this view also, an opportunity to the person appears to be all the more necessary. The other question which has been raised before me, though elaborately argued at one stage is as to what is the scope of section 5 of the Validating Act 12 of 1968. The question posed was that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal having followed the law which was prevailing on that date and having allowed the appeal of the assessee, whether the revenue, by....