1986 (3) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to the petitioner on 20th September, 1974. The respondent No. 1, Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, held that the gross turnover of the petitioner exceeded the taxable quantum of Rs. 10,000 on 20th August, 1970, and therefore the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 4(2) of the Act with effect from 20th October, 1970. A proceeding thereafter was initiated under section 11(2) of the Act and a notice in form VI was issued on 7th October, 1974, directing the petitioner to produce all the books of accounts and other relevant evidence for the period from 20th October, 1970, to 19th September, 1974, in respect of the assessment for pre-registration period. The petitioner complied with said requisition. The petitioner took an obj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the respondents cannot retain the money collected from the petitioner as there was no valid assessment under the law and he, accordingly, submitted that the entire amount paid should be refunded to the petitioner. This contention of Mr. Chakraborty is well-founded. In G. Lakshminarayana v. Commercial Tax Officer, First Circle, Hyderabad reported in [1974] 33 STC 558 (AP) the assessee was assessed to tax for the year 1959-60 and had also paid advance tax as demanded by the sales tax authorities. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for fresh disposal. Subsequently, the authorities closed the assessment pro....