NAMADEVA SHENOY Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am not satisfied, notwithstanding the attempt made by the learned Government Pleader to support the order under attack, that there has been a real opportunity given to the petitioner to place his objections to the pre-assessment notice. Even the pre-assessment notice that has been furnished to the petitioner, viz., Ext. P. 1, except attempting to comply with an empty formality, as such, does not at all give any indication as to what basis the assessing authority proposes to adopt.

(2.) No doubt, in the pre-assessment notice Ext. P. 1 dated 23-7-1960 there are certain defects pointed out, which, according to the officer, exist in the books of account that have been produced. After mentioning some of these aspects, ultimately the assessing authority states that the accounts have been rejected in the previous years, and it is, therefore, proposed to reject the book results and estimate the turnover to the best of his judgment.

(3.) But, having mentioned it, there is absolutely no further indication in the notice Ext. P. 1 as to what is the basis on which he proposes to make an estimate according to the best of his judgment. The notice finally winds up by calling upon the petitioner to file his objections, if any, and prove the case with necessary evidence before the Officer on 30-7-1960.