BHOLARAM MURLIDHAR AGARWAL Vs. R S DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in this case is one Bholaram Murlidhar Agarwal, who does business under the name and style "Bholaram Murlidhar Agarwal" at Gondia in the Bhandara District. THE business which he carries on is business in general merchandise. He is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947).

(2.) AS a dealer, he was assessed to sales tax for the period between 1st June, 1947 and 18th October, 1952, and six different notices were issued to him for six different periods. These six periods were : (1) 1st June, 1947, to 12th November, 1947; (2) 13th November, 1947, to 1st November, 1948; (3) 2nd November, 1948, to 21st October, 1949; (4) 22nd October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950; (5) 10th November, 1950, to 30th October, 1951; and (6) 31st October, 1951, to 18th October, 1952. In respect of these six periods, orders of assessment were made respectively on the 11th March, 1949, 30th September, 1950, 29th April, 1951, 4th January, 1953, 4th January, 1953, and 26th February, 1954. The assessment orders are annexed to the petition as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 respectively.

(3.) UPON this petition, various points have been made by Mr. Thakkar appearing for the applicant. The principal point taken by him is that the notices issued against him in form XII for re-assessment are without jurisdiction. A further point has been taken by him, and that point is that in so far as the first opponent has seized his account books, that action of the first opponent is contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. As supplementary to the second contention, it has been urged that the seizure of the account books is illegal, and the retention or detention of those account books is also illegal. With regard to the point of seizure and retention or detention of the account books, Mr. Thakkar has not pressed these two contentions. It was pointed out to him that the questions raised by him are questions of fact, which would require evidence in order to dispose of these contentions. It was also pointed out to him that he did not apply to the Sales Tax Officer, asking that the books of account seized by the first opponent should be returned, either because the seizures was illegal, or because the detention of these books was also illegal. It is not, therefore, necessary to deal with these two contentions, and we are, therefore, required to deal with the principal contention and the ancillary contention referred to above.