TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e throughout India, Nepal and Bhutan. It also exports to other countries both directly as also through its agent Telco Exports Limited, Bombay. 3.. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 1982-83 an assessment was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamsedpur (respondent No. 4) on March 23, 1991 in which deduction on the basis of "D" form filed by the petitioner was allowed in respect of sales to Sikkim National Transport and to Government departments. As some claims were disallowed the petitioner filed statutory appeal which was disposed of on January 11, 1995 and the petitioner filed another revision petition before the Tribunal, which is pending. Subsequently, during the course of routine audit of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 6, 1995 itself. The assessing officer, on getting such sanction, it is asserted, issued notice to the petitioner for hearing and the same was served on June 10, 1995, but as the company did not take any action on the date fixed, the assessing authority passed impugned order of assessment on June 15, 1995, by reason of which he reviewed the original assessment order dated March 23, 1991. The said assessment order is annexure 6 to this writ application. 4.. Mr. Jain, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referring to the order of assessment dated March 23, 1991 (annexure 1), strongly contended that the assessing officer completely erred in law in not taking note of the relief already allowed by the respondent No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Standing Counsel I, however, has tried to justify the impugned order by submitting that the petitioner has moved this Court by suppressing material facts and without exhausting internal statutory remedy available to it. Her contention is that the impugned order is dated June 15, 1995 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ application by filing the same on March 12, 1997, i.e., about after two years and as such, on the ground of laches the writ application should be dismissed. 6.. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have given some facts which are required to be mentioned hereinafter. According to them, for the assessment year 1982 the assessment order was passed on March 23, 1991, the same order was impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the earlier assessment order dated March 23, 1991 the petitioner moved two appeals being JRCSTA8/91-92 and JRCSTA-23/91-92 both under Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act respectively before the respondent No. 3. The appellate authority after hearing the petitioner passed final order on January 10, 1995 in both the appeals respectively making certain modification in the assessment order and remanded the same to the assessing authority. This remand order is annexure A. It is specific stand of the respondents that this order of the appellate authority dated January 10, 1995 has not been impugned by the petitioner before any authority and as such, the same has become final. According to the respondents, the Tribunal set aside the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the concerned authority on receiving the demand notice. This petition has been marked as annexure 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the main writ application, there is no averment as such that on receiving the said notice on June 10, 1995 the petitioner had taken any step before the concerned authority much less filing of any petition as stated in the supplementary affidavit. 8.. There is no dispute that before passing of the impugned order the respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner informing the date of hearing as June 15, 1995. It is also not in controversy that on June 15, 1995 neither any representative appeared before the respondent No. 3 nor any petition was filed. Thus, it is futile for the petitioner to ....