1999 (7) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a registered dealer under the State Sales Tax Act during the period from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987. The petitioner received a notice bearing No. 991 dated March 12, 1987 in form No. 24 from the Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Circle 1. By the said notice the petitioner was asked to produce before him his books of accounts for determination of his liability to pay tax under section 4-A of the State Sales Tax Act. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice on June 8, 1987. By order dated July 16, 1987, after scrutiny of books of accounts, his liability to pay the tax under the State Sales Tax Act was determined with effect from July 1, 1984 (annexure C). The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Circle 2, by a common notice in form XVI bearing No. 154 dated January 12, 1989 (annexure D) directed the petitioner to appear before him on January 23, 1989 with his books of accounts for assessment under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act and also under the Entry Tax Act for the period from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam Circle 2, passed an order of assessment on July 27, 1989 (annexure E) in Assessment Case No. 28/1987 (State) for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sdiction of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer to pass the assessment orders beyond the period of limitation provided under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, issued a notice in form No. XXVIII bearing No. 840 dated October 23, 1989 under section 39(2) of the State Sales Tax Act and by the said notice the Deputy Commissioner proposed to levy a penalty on the petitioner under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act on the ground that the petitioner was an unregistered dealer during the period of assessment from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on May 25, 1990 under section 39(2) and levied a penalty of Rs. 11,000 under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act (annexure I). In this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of orders dated July 27, 1989 (annexures E and F); orders dated June 1, 1990 (annexures G and G-1) passed under section 39(1) of the State Sales Tax Act and also the order dated May 25, 1990 (annexure I) passed under section 39(2) of the State Sales Tax Act on the ground that the proceedings were barred by time under section 18(6)(a) of the State Sales Tax Act a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6.. The short question involved in this case is that whether the proceedings initiated under section 18(6) by notice dated January 12, 1989 under form XVI are within the period of 12 months from the date of completion of proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 4-A of the State Sales Tax Act or not. For consideration of this short question, the provisions of section 18(6)(a) of the Sales Tax Act are quoted below: "18. Assessment of tax.-.... ............................................   (6)(a) If upon any information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer, who has been liable to pay tax in respect of any period, has failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner shall, within twelve months from the date of completion of the proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 4-A, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed, to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of the whole of such period; and the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the dealer has wilfully failed to apply for registration, direct that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sition of this date but subsequently it was reported by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the aforesaid record is not traceable and therefore, final arguments were heard.   10.. In the petition the petitioner has pleaded that for the first time a common notice in form XVI bearing No. 154 dated January 12, 1989 was issued to the petitioner for the assessment under section 18(6) for the period from July 1, 1984 to March 31, 1987 and in the return this fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, from the return itself it is clear that the respondents have admitted these facts. From the aforesaid notice dated January 12, 1989 it is very much clear that no other notice was ever issued by the respondents for the assessment under section 18(6) to the petitioner. The order sheets of respondent No. 2, Sales Tax Officer, is not available nor produced on record to show that the proceedings under section 18(6) were initiated on August 21, 1987. Therefore, from the record it is very clear that the assessment proceedings under section 18(6) were initiated on January 12, 1989 and not on August 21, 1987. On the basis of the admitted position of fact, as....