1991 (1) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was correct or legal for the Tribunal to decline to consider and admit the declaration produced at the revisionsal stage? 2.. Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case it was correct and legal for the Tribunal to hold that reasonable opportunity of being heard had been allowed to the petitioner before making the assessment to the best of his judgment by the learned Commercial Tax Officer? and 3.. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned Assistant Commissioner could support the determination of the gross turnover and the taxable sales of the assessee-dealer under section 11(1) of the Act at the figures of Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 7,07,806, respectively.   The reference has subsequently been transferred t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer on October 3, 1970 and that the claim for deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was not justified. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred a revision before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The revision succeeded in part, though the Commercial Taxes Tribunal observed that the Tribunal agreed with the learned Assistant Commissioner and the learned Commercial Tax Officer that the ex parte assessment was made after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and had further agreed with the views of the learned Commercial Tax Officer and the appellate authority for not allowing any deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1941 for alleged sales to registered dealers. After this decision of the West Bengal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority and of the revisional order by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal goes to show that after the learned Commercial Tax Officer had granted 13 adjournments, including some adjournments suo motu without any prayer for adjournment by the applicant, the learned Commercial Tax Officer did not allow the verbal prayer for adjournment on October 3, 1970, presumably because of the fact that there was nearly about one month left for completing the assessment which would have been otherwise barred by limitation. There is nothing perverse in the view of the Tribunal that when further time was not allowed on October 3, 1970, the applicant should have at least made a prayer for adjournment for one day to en....