RAM SAHNEY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case stated under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE question referred is as follows :

(3.) TWO main points were taken : (1) that the proceedings under section 21 should be restricted to the 36 bales regarding which the Sales Tax Officer had information at the time the notice was issued and he could not have taken into consideration the information regarding 350 bales which were received after the period of four years within which the notice under section 21 could have been issued; and (2) that there was no basis for the determination of the turnover at Rs. 4,08,000. The Judge (Appeals) repelled the first contention holding that it was not obligatory upon the Sales Tax Officer to disclose the basis for initiating proceedings under section 21 so long as he had reasonable ground to believe that the turnover had escaped assessment. On the second question, however, the Judge (Appeals) considered that it was obligatory upon the Sales Tax Officer to disclose the basis for determining the turnover at Rs. 4,08,000. He, therefore, remanded the case for reassessment in the light of the observations made by him. Against the order of remand a revision was filed by the assessee. Before the Judge (Revisions) the order of remand was attacked on the ground that as the information with respect to the remaining 350 bales was not received within four years and as no fresh notice under section 21, in respect thereof, could have been issued, it could not be taken into consideration while making the assessment under section 21. On merits, the Judge (Revisions) was satisfied that the remand directed by the Judge (Appeals) was called for. Hence this reference at the instance of the assessee.