1997 (2) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rries on business of "supari and pan masala", etc., at Indore. It is registered as a dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). It was assessed for the years 1982-83 to 1986-87. However, the respondent No. 1 issued notice (annexure P1) under section 19(1) of the Act to the petitioner stating that there are reasons to believe that certain transactions liable to tax during the aforesaid period have escaped assessment rendering the petitioner liable to be reassessed as also liable to penalty. This notice was challenged by the petitioner in M.P. No. 1208 of 1990 [Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 165 (MP)] on the fulcrum of want of jurisdiction. The petition was resisted b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f jurisdiction before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has thereupon passed the order (annexure P4) dated March 27, 1996 holding that there is material available to show that there has been sale and purchase of goods in Madhya Pradesh by the petitioner which has escaped assessment and as such the respondent had jurisdiction to proceed with the proposed reassessment in terms of section 19(1) of the Act. It is this order (annexure P4) of respondent No. 1 which is under challenge in the present petition. 5.. It is averred by the petitioner that the material relied upon by the respondent No. 1 does not disclose or establish any sale/purchase within the territory of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent No. 1, therefore, did not acquire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners that in order to invoke jurisdiction under section 19(1), two things must be satisfied; one: that there has been some sale or purchase of goods within the State of M.P. any time during 5 years preceding the assessment; and two: that such transaction has either been under-assessed or escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate. In the instant case, however, the respondent No. 1 on the basis of material made available to him was satisfied that there existed grounds for proceeding under section 19(1). That being so, this Court cannot enter into the merits of the material and come to its own conclusions. Section 19(1) itself contemplates hearing of the dealer and enquiry by the taxing authority before any such assessment can be m....