MAKHALI WINE STORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee was carrying on business in various items including the selling of Indian made foreign liquor. The assessee did not file return for the months of May, June, July and August, 1983 and consequently it was assessed under Rule 41(6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules for the aforesaid months by the Sales Tax Officer. In the first appeal filed by the assessee the turnover fixed by the assessing authority was reduced by fifty per cent. The assessee feeling aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the same. The assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.

(2.) Mr. M. S. Negi, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the assessee was not given any notice before passing the assessment order by the assessing authority and as such the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer is vitiated on that ground alone. Counsel for the parties agree that in view of the decision of this Court in Padam Chand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1985 UPTC 331 the assessee is entitled to a notice by the Sales Tax Officer before passing a provisional assessment order. Since in the instant case the Sales Tax Officer has not issued notice to the assessee before passing the provisional assessment order, the order passed by him cannot be sustained. Consequently the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Tribunal are also liable to be quashed.

(3.) In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh and while doing so it will send the case back to the assessing authority who will pass fresh assessment order after giving notice to the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.