TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings, the Sales Tax Officer served a notice on the petitioner. This notice was actually served on one Harishankar, son of Ramswaroop, one of the partners of the petitioner-firm. By this notice, the petitioner was required to appear before the S.T.O. on 11th April, 1979. One of the partners is alleged to have appeared on that date but he was assigned no other date in the order sheet and was orally ordered to appear on 30th April, 1979. It appears that the assessment was completed on 11th April, 1979, and the assessment order was passed treating the petitioner ex parte. The gross turnover shown in returns filed by the petitioner were accepted but certain deductions claimed on account of sales to registered dealers were not allowed. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that although the order rejecting the application under section 45-A cannot be interfered with, the second contention has substance and must be accepted. It is true, as held by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash's case [1980] 46 STC 71 (FB), that absence of due and proper service of notice to the initiation of assessment proceedings is without jurisdiction. In the present case, however, we notice that the return for the period under assessment itself was filed by Harishankar. Not only this, even earlier it is this Harishankar alone who had been acting before the sales tax authorities on behalf of the partner and was duly representing the firm. Under these circumstances, the S.T.O. committed no error in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h an opportunity need not be given at two stages but must be given in accordance with the principles of natural justice so that the assessee is not affected adversely without being heard. In the instant case, from the order of the S.T.O. dated 11th April, 1979, it is apparent that for the purpose of turnover tax he has allowed the deduction claimed by the petitioner. If in spite of this, and in spite of accepting the figure of gross turnover as submitted by the petitioner, the S.T.O. felt that the same deduction was not allowable for any reason for the purpose of assessment of sales tax, the petitioner ought to have been noticed and should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the same item was rejected. It appears somewhat a....