TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 22(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, without complying with the provisions of section 43 thereof, in order to first determine or assess the opponent's liability to pay the said amount of tax which was not paid by M/s. Mehta & Co., as the selling commission agent as declared in terms of certificate in form No. 21?". M/s. Nandlal Madhavji (hereinafter referred to as "the opponent") is carrying on business of selling oil-seeds. It is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Between Kartik Sud 1 and Aso Vad 30 of Samvat year 2027, the opponent, through its commission agent, M/s. Mehta & Co., Rajkot, sold oil-seeds worth Rs. 11,13,334. In respect of these sales, the commission agent had issued certificate in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opponent had not remained present in the inquiry following that notice, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order on September 14, 1977. The Sales Tax Officer also passed an order for issuance of demand notice for payment of the said amount of tax. The opponent then preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. It is not necessary to refer to the various grounds on which the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer was challenged as ultimately, in the second appeal before the Tribunal, only one contention was pressed and others were given up. The Assistant Commissioner did not find any substance in any of the contentions raised before him and he dismissed the appeal. The opponent thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... become applicable and, therefore, it would be necessary for the department to either assess or reassess the principal in order to make him liable for payment of tax in respect of such commission sales. As regards the facts of this case, the Tribunal was of the view that as the previous notice dated September 15, 1975, issued for that very purpose was withdrawn, the reassessment proceedings can be said to have been dropped by the Sales Tax Officer. It further held that the subsequent notice dated June 9, 1977, was not a notice issued for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings but was a notice issued under section 22 of the Act. The Tribunal then observed that section 22 does not provide machinery for recovering the tax due and, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required to construe section 34 which is similar to section 43 with which we are concerned in this case. It was held in that case that though the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, or the Rules framed thereunder, do not contain any specific provision for giving any notice to the transferee of a running business, who becomes liable under section 19(4) of that Act, on true construction of the provisions of section 34, he becomes entitled to notices which are contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 33 of that Act. It may be stated that section 33 of that Act relates to the actual assessment of taxes and provides how the Commissioner should proceed for the purpose of such an assessment. In that sense, it was held that section 34 contemplates the ....