1975 (5) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of luxury goods and also used to give the said articles on hire under hire-purchase agreement. The other partner, Sm. Kankanwari Baid died on 9th May, 1973. The petitioners are registered as dealers both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the four quarters ending on 31st December, 1973, the petitioners could not submit returns for the 1st quarter ended on 31st March, 1973, within due time, i.e., 30th April, 1973. Thereafter on 8th August, 1973, the petitioners submitted the return for the second quarter ended on 30th June, 1973, showing a gross turnover of Rs. 8,55,511.63 and claiming deduction on account of delivery, discount, etc., under the relevant provisions of the Bengal (Finance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r was estimated at Rs. 34,00,000 on mere surmise, suspicion and conjecture. The assessing authority did not conform to the requirement of law and there was no material and/or basis in estimating such gross turnover. It is further contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioners and there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Sirkar, appearing on behalf of the respondents, raised two preliminary objections. In the first place, he contended that the other partner, namely, Sm. Kankanwari Baid had died on 9th May, 1973, and her heirs had not been made party in the present rule and the Receiver, who was appointed in a suit on the Original Side of this Court, has not been made a party in other similar rules in wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnection with the ex parte assessment made by the sales tax authorities. So the second preliminary point of Mr. Sirkar also fails. In Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar[1957] 8 S.T.C. 770 (S.C.); [1958] S.C.A. 852., the Supreme Court observed: "No doubt it is true that when the returns and the books of account are rejected, the assessing officer must make an estimate, and to that extent he must make a guess; but the estimate must be related to some evidence or material and it must be something more than mere suspicion. To use the words of Lord Russel of Killowen again, 'he must make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment' and for this purpose he must take into consideration such ma....