CHEMBILALI NOORUDDIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This tax revision has been filed by the assessee, a merchant dealing in grocery, cashew, copra, coconuts etc. The Revision relates to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65. The S. T. O., Tellicherry, issued a pre-assessment notice to the assessee for the years 61-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 on 18-3-1965 under S.12 of the General Sales Tax, Act, 1125. The notice directed the assessee to file his objections to the proposals contained in the notice within 3 days. The assessee's case is that he received the notice only on 27-3-65 and he hastened to the authorities with a request for extension of time but was informed that the assessment had been made on 27-3-1965 itself. He then filed an appeal before the A.A.C. which was dismissed. The matter was taken up before the S. T. A. Tribunal and it was contended that since a reasonable opportunity had not been given to him to represent his case before the assessment, the order of assessment was illegal and liable to be set aside. The appellate Tribunal held that the notice had been issued on 18-3-1965 and the assessment was completed only on 27-3-'65 and therefore the assessee had been given reasonable opportunity for making the representations.

(2.) The assessee's learned counsel submitted that the pre assessment notice had been received by him only on 27-3-'65 and by the time he applied for extension of time he came to know that the assessment had been made on a best of judgment basis on 27-3-'65 itself. It is well settled that in making a best judgment assessment the assessing authority discharge quasi judicial function and that a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the assessee to meet the proposals of the officer making the best judgment assessment. In this case, though the pre-assessment notice is seen to have been issued on 18-3-65 the assessee received it only on 27-3-65. He has made a definite averment of this fact and neither the App: Asst: Commissioner nor the App: Tribunal has thought it fit to deny the allegation. Before us also, the counsel for the State was unable to say whether the notice had been served on the assessee earlier than on 27-3-65. In these circumstances it is clear that the pre-assessment notice reached the assessee only on 27-3-65. The assessment was made on the same date so that the assessee had no reasonable opportunity to make his representations.