2009 (2) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Burabazar Circle and also the assessment order dated June 30, 2005 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Strand Road Charge. The petitioner, M/s. Grain Processing Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 29, Strand Road, Kolkata 700 001. The factory of the petitioner is situated at Kantra, Domjur, Howrah. The petitioner is registered under the State and Central Sales Tax Acts as a manufacturer of "rice mill machinery parts". The assessment for four quarters ending on March 31, 2003 was completed on June 30, 2005. The assessing officer allowed the entire turnover of sales as assessable under the Central Sales T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsumable stores, power and fuel are purchased from the registered dealers and hence estimation of 30 per cent of the expenses as unregistered purchase and reduction of the same to 20 per cent by respondent No. 2 has no basis. The learned advocate has alleged that due to ex parte order passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner could not produce the supporting vouchers before him. It is pointed out that the last date of hearing was fixed on September 9, 2008. On that day, Mr. Indrajit Guha, learned advocate, attended a case at the Sales Tax Building at Salt Lake and thereafter went to the Beliaghata Building at 5 p.m. to appear before respondent No. 3. But unfortunately Mr. Guha could not meet him on that day since respondent No. 3 was not a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive has contended that at least 4 (four) opportunities were allowed to the petitioner. The basic question is not the number of times allowed to the petitioner for hearing. The question is whether on the last date of hearing the petitioner was reasonably prevented from appearing before the concerned officer or not. Undisputedly, in this case one Mr. Guha, learned advocate, was engaged in attending a case at the Sales Tax Building at Salt Lake and that is why he was late in attending the case before respondent No. 3 on September 9, 2008. As such, it is a fact that due to engagement in one case at Sales Tax Building at Salt Lake, the learned advocate of the petitioner could not appear before respondent No. 3 on September 9, 2008. There i....