TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals together. 3.. The appellant has challenged the assessment orders dated February 8, 2002 passed against M/s. Satpal & Co., Sriganganagar, for assessment year 1994-95 and demand in respect of which has been raised under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act against the appellant deeming it to be a partner of M/s. Satpal & Co. 4.. Both the writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant ought to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. 5.. The principal contention of the appellant has been that he has been subjected to huge demand of over a crore rupees for two successive periods (total above Rs. 2 crores) without any basis or material to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. These facts are not in dispute. 8.. M/s. Satpal & Co., is the person registered as dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at Sriganganagar which according to assessment order was found to be registered as sole proprietorship firm of one Mr. Sachin Kumar. The appellant has been held liable for the tax by stating that he along with other eleven persons named in order are deemed to be carrying on business in the name of M/s. Satpal & Co., because he has purchased two tankers of oil through an agent from M/s. Satpal & Co., Sukharia Shopping Centre, Sriganganagar, during the assessment period in question. 9.. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il from M/s. Satpal & Co., during the years in question and had made payments through account payee cheques, drafts. It denied that it had any connection with the firm as partner and made a prayer to reveal the information as material on the basis of which the appellant was treated as partner of M/s. Satpal & Co., which was a registered dealer, with the respondent authorities. The proceedings ultimately culminated in assessment order dated February 8, 2002 wherein following facts have been noticed by the assessing officer: "That M/s. Satpal & Co., was registered on September 20, 1994 by one Shri Sachin Kumar, S/o. Shri Daulat Ram resident of Sriganganagar. During the course of inquiry, the place of business was not found at 119, Sukharia S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m." Apart from bald statement in the assessment order or the notice, it is not shown how the appellant is connected with the carrying on business of the firm M/s. Satpal & Co., which was found to be non-genuine firm registered as sole proprietorship firm, but was found to be not the sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Sachin Kumar as it purported to be under the registration certificate. The respondents have filed survey report, annexure R/1, conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer 1, Circle Sriganganagar. In the assessment order, the basis of deeming the appellant as partner of the firm is stated to be the said survey report. 12.. The survey report, annexure R/1, clearly reads that according to the registration certificate, M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al & Co. Neither in the order nor in the return, the assertion that the appellant is a unit of the Haryana State Federation and is State Government undertaking is denied. Apparently, there appears to be no material either in survey report or in the assessment order to connect the appellant as a partner of M/s. Satpal & Co., even distantly and is contrary to the positive finding recorded by the Survey Officer in his survey report about the persons who appeared to him to be carrying on the business of M/s. Satpal & Co. The liability has been fixed on the petitioner on no material, at whims and caprice of the assessing officer and the conclusion is one to which no person of ordinary prudence will ordinarily reach. 14.. In the aforesaid circum....