TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. It is contended that the petitioner filed monthly returns for the period from April to July, 2003 and the assessing authority by invoking rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 sought to reject the monthly returns and to make assessments on the allegation of clandestine transactions revealed on enquires. It is stated that the petitioner, on receipt of the pre-assessment notices dated October 9, 2003 (exhibits P1 and P2) had submitted objections dated October 29, 2003 (exhibits P3 and P4) seeking for the supply of the documents obtained on enquiry to file detailed objections in the matter. Respondent, thereafter issued revised pre-assessment notices (exhibits P6 and P7). It is also stated that when proceedings were initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under both the enactments are completed as per exhibits P13 and P14, i.e., the next day after filing the objections. 2.. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent. Respondent was also present in court with the assessment records as instructed by the Government Pleader. Heard the rival submissions and perused the records. 3.. As already noted, the assessee is a dealer in rubber. He filed monthly returns both under the Kerala General Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax Acts for the months of April to July, 2003. Respondent got confidential reports from the Commercial Investigation Wing of the Department that the petitioner had been effecting clandestine transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proposing the assessments under both the enactments was the originals of the delivery note and the N forms which were obtained from the sales tax check-posts at Walayar and Kumily and the Rubber Board check-post at Walayar. Admittedly these documents or the particulars contained therein, had not been furnished to the petitioner. Petitioner had also requested for cross-examining the officers who are in possession of those documents. All these matters are stated in the assessment orders (exhibits P13 and P14). 4.. In regard to the above, the explanation of the respondent in the assessment order is as follows: "The main objection raised by the assessee in the first para is that the details and documents in respect of the alleged discrep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment orders that the respondent has relied on the particulars contained in the duplicate copies of the departmental delivery notes and N forms collected by the Investigation Wing that "the grade of rubber noted as natural rubber" but the same is natural rubber skim off grade as per certain original copies kept by the assessee. It is also stated that the value noted in the original copies is lesser than the duplicate copies produced before the STCPs and "N" forms filed before the Rubber Board. Further it is seen that the turnover is determined and the assessments are completed based on the aforesaid two documents. 7.. In these circumstances when the petitioner has sought for the copies of the documents relied on for the purpose of ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees which is sine qua non for making best judgment assessments particularly in view of the specific provisions contained in section 17(3) proviso under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the instant case, the matter relates to monthly assessments for the period from April to July, 2003. The monthly returns are due to be filed on or before the 10th of the succeeding months supported by evidence regarding payment of tax under rule 21(7) of the Rules. If the returns are not acceptable, the assessing authority can make an assessment under rule 21(9) of the Rules after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case in respect of the period from April to Jul....