TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in Ranchi town. For carrying on the business it got itself registered under the then Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that it closed its business with effect from March 31, 1982 after paying the admitted tax on the available stock as required under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act. Later. on December 27, 1982 it made an application for cancellation of the registration certificate. Earlier, it is said, for two consecutive years, i.e., 1980-81 and 1981-82, it had filed "nil" returns which were accepted and the petitioner's sales tax liability was assessed as nil. According to the petitioner, no information was sent to it regarding the aforesaid application for cancellation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counter-affidavit. From perusal of the said two orders dated March 10, 1992 and January 29, 1993 it would appear that for the periods in question, i.e., 1983-84 and 1984-85 the assessing officer made best judgment assessment under section 17(3) of the Act assessing gross turnover at Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 1 lac and sales tax at 4 per cent at Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 4,000 respectively, besides penalty of Rs. 325 and Rs. 3,500 for late submission of the returns. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said orders/notices contained in annexures 4, 6 and 7 to the writ petition. 3.. Mr. R.K. Merathia, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner having filed application for cancellation of registration after two consecu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment periods 1980-81 and 1981-82 the petitioner had filed "nil" returns and it had been assessed accordingly. The petitioner relying on the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 3 of the Act contends that the liability to pay sales tax ceased after expiry of two consecutive assessment periods 1980-81 and 1981-82 during each of which its gross turnover did not exceed the "specified quantum" and therefore until the gross turnover during any period not exceeding 12 months thereafter exceeded the specified quantum, it cannot be held liable to either file return or pay the sales tax. 6.. At this stage the provisions of section 3, so far as relevant, may be noticed as follows: "3. Charge of tax.--(1) Subject to the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration mentioned in the first proviso to clause (c') of sub-section (I) of section 21 and remaining unsold on the termination of his liability, (5) Every dealer whose liability to pay tax has ceased under sub-section (3) shall again be liable to pay such tax tinder clause (b) of subsection (1) with effect from the day following the date on which his gross turnover during a period not exceeding twelve months immediately preceding such date again exceed the quantum specified in the said clause. ............." 7.. From the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 it would appear that every dealer is required to pay sales tax (or the purchase tax, as the case may be) where his gross turnover during the preceding 12 months period e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vied on it, vide annexure 4 with respect to the first quarter of that year. 9.. As regards the assessment-cum-penalty orders for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, as noted above, these orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner on the basis of best judgment assessment. I do not want to go into the question as to whether the non-appearance of the petitioner in connection with the assessment proceedings for these two years was justified or not. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to give an opportunity to it to produce documents to show that its gross turnover during the said periods did not exceed the specified quantum. As already pointed out above, after the nil assessment for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, by virtue of the pr....