V S NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. STO PALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by this single judgment as they arise out of similar facts and involve the same question. The petitioner in OP. Nos. 3695 and 3697 is the same. He is a dealer in rubber and bill produce at Palai. The petitioner in OP. No. 3936 is another such dealer at the same place. The respondent in all these cases is the Sales Tax Officer, Palai. OP. Nos. 3695 and 3697 are to quash the orders of assessment passed by the respondent under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 for the years 1960-61 and, 1961-62, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to summon the representatives of Messrs. Munnalal Bhalotia and Co., and Messrs. Bata Shoe Company, for being cross examined by the petitioner in assessing him afresh as directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kottayam. OP. No. 3936 is for the same reliefs in respect of the assessment against the petitioner in that case for the year 1960-61.

(2.) The petitioner's main business during the relevant years was purchase and sale of rubber, which was then taxable at the point of first sale in the State. Their sales were to M/S. Munnalal Bhalotia and Co., Cochin and Bata Shoe Company, Kottayam, both of whom had purchase depots at Palai. On inspection of the books of accounts of these companies, the respondent noticed large quantities of purchases in the names of three persons. He found for the reasons stated in his orders of assessment made against the petitioner in OP. Nos. 3695 and 3697 that they were fictitious persons in whose names the petitioner sold rubber to the above companies. On the above basis the petitioner's books of accounts were rejected and his turnovers for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were fixed more or less at twice the amounts returned by him. The petitioner's contention that he has not made any sales to the above companies except those disclosed by his books of account was rejected by the respondent. The petitioner applied to the respondent to summon the representatives of the above two companies, and give him an opportunity to cross examine them with reference to the account books relied on by the respondent so as to enable the petitioner to establish his case. That was refused by the respondent. The petitioner also contended that he was not liable to tax on the sales made by him to the above companies, as the said sales were not the first sales in the State. This contention was not considered by the respondent.

(3.) The petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kottayam from both the assessments. By a common order dated 31-10-1966, copy of which is marked as Ext. P3 in OP. No. 3695, he allowed both the appeals, set aside the orders of assessment and remitted the cases to the respondent for fresh disposal after taking proper action on the petitioner's request for cross examination of the representatives of the above companies. Regarding the petitioner's contention that his sales were not the first sales and were not, therefore, liable to tax, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the evidence produced by the petitioner. The cases came back to the respondent, who held that the petitioner's, contention that he should be given an opportunity to cross examine the representatives of the said companies was unsustainable; and he confirmed his previous assessments. The orders of assessment are dated 12-6-1969; and they have been marked as Ex. P6 in each of the two cases.