1995 (12) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quisite information to the respondent No. 1 as per their record maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act and the Rules framed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Dabra. The petitioner also prayed that the notice for assessment (annexure P24) may also be quashed. 2.. The petitioner is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of grain, oil-seeds, pulses and paddy at Dabra, which commenced with effect from November 1, 1992 and applied for registration under section 16 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner was liable to pay tax with effect from November 12, 1992 and according to proviso (ii) of the rule 15 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, a dealer is requ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has made purchase to the tune of Rs. 7,94,640 but has not shown the same in his turnover, thereby he has concealed this income. This fact came to light by the Flying Squad. It is stated that since the petitioner appears to be guilty of concealment of this income, therefore, the respondents are demanding a security of Rs. 10 lakhs. 4.. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 5.. So far as the validity of section 38-A is concerned, suffice it to say that validity of section 38 was challenged before this Court which provides for appeal and the condition that when appeal is filed, the appellant has to deposit certain amount of the tax. That question was agitated before this Court in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o need for the respondents to have issued a show cause notice for demanding the security of Rs. 10 lakhs. This fact has not been disputed by the respondent in the return rather at the time of passing this order, the respondent was aware of the return filed by the petitioner and on the contrary, they have admitted that return has been filed by the respondents and as per return, it appears that there is concealment of the taxable turnover, which shows that the petitioner had filed return on April 30, 1993 and also denied the fact. Both these facts have been admitted by the respondents in their return. There was no necessity for the respondents to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner. It appears that as per section 16-A(2), where th....