TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (2) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Sales Tax Act "), and under rule 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Sales Tax Rules"). The case of the petitioner is that he is a registered trader and dealer for the purposes of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The petitioner started his business on 13th May, 1981. The petitioner submitted return of sale and purchase as required under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act for the period between 13th May, 1981, till 9th August, 1981. Later on the petitioner found that as there was no taxable turnover as envisaged under section 2(s)(ii) and also as required by proviso 3, sub-clause (3) of rule 25, there was no necessity of filing any return whatsoever as required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no liability on the part of the petitioner to submit quarterly returns as there was no taxable turnover of the petitioner during the period in question. The petitioner was also not required to submit the quarterly returns as its case was covered by rule 25 of the Sales Tax Rules. The third proviso of clause (3) of rule 25 exempted the petitioner from filing the returns since it had no taxable turnover for that period. The petitioner was liable to submit only annual return in form No. ST 21 not later than 60 days after the end of such year of account. By virtue of this provision, the petitioner was supposed to submit its annual return not before the start of next assessment year,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mr. Lodha though the case was listed in orders. It may be pertinent to observe that though the writ petition challenging the notice (exhibit 1), was filed on 29th January, 1982, in this Court but the order of the provisional assessment had been passed by the assessing authority on 27th January, 1982, itself. Mr. L.M. Lodha still tried to challenge the validity of the notice (exhibit 1) on the ground that in case the notice itself was illegal and without jurisdiction, all the subsequent proceedings of the order of provisional assessment as well as imposition of penalty were also illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. L. M. Lodha, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e charge is based. These observations were made in a case where action was taken by the authorities against malpractices committed by certain students during the examination. In Suresh Kumar's case AIR 1966 Punj 152 was a case of a student having used unfair means in the matriculation examination held by the Punjab University, it was observed that the opportunity that had to be given to a candidate is to be a reality and not a mere farce before he can meet his case and give a proper explanation, he must be told not only what is going to be considered against him but also the persons who are giving information against him, so that he may be able to show that the statement made by a particular person is not worthy of credence for certain r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. It was observed that when the results committee had used the examiner's and an expert's reports but these were not shown to the examinee and he was also not given a chance to offer his explanation, it was clear that the principles of natural justice had been violated. As already mentioned above, the present writ petition was filed on 29th January, 1982, when the order of provisional assessment had already been passed by the assessing authority on 27th January, 1982. It is not in dispute that the order of provisional assessment passed on 27th January, 1982, is an appealable order and the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy of challenging such an order of provisional assessment. The notice (exhibit 1) basically challenged by t....