TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (10) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution the petitioner has challenged the ex parte orders of assessment dated July 22, 1985 (annexures E1 and E2) passed by respondent No. 1 as well as the revisional order dated January 11, 1988 (annexure H) passed by respondent No. 2, the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Satna and the penalty imposed on the petitioner under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rs. 15,000 in the second period. Respondent No. 1 estimated the turnover of the petitioner's business for two periods by enhancing the same by Rs. 10,000 in the first period and Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) in the second period. The petitioner was not satisfied by the said assessment and, therefore, challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Satna, in appeal. The Deputy Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as sent to respondent No. 1 and yet respondent No. 1 closed the case for ex parte order on July 19, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient reason for the petitioner for not appearing before respondent No. 1 on July 19, 1985 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 should not have proceeded ex parte and was not justified in making ex parte assessment. It may be pointed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t rate of tax on cycle at the relevant time was 6 per cent and not 8 per cent, at which the petitioner has been charged. This apart, the respondents in reply to ground No. VII, have admitted in their return that rate of sales tax on sales of cycles was reduced from 8 per cent to 6 per cent by the notification referred to above. That being so, the respondents were absolutely incorrect and unjustifi....