COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX BOMBAY Vs. SATNAMSINGH RAJASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, at the instance of the department.

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to this reference, are that the respondents who were carrying on business in coal-ash at Ahmednagar, had not got themselves registered as dealers under the said Act even though their turnover had exceeded the limit for registration prescribed by section 5 of the said Act. On coming to learn this fact, the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmednagar, served a notice upon the respondents on 8th April, 1964, to show cause why they should not be assessed under section 14(6) of the said Act. Though the respondents appeared pursuant to the said notice, they did not produce any books of account on the ground that they did not keep any books. The Sales Tax Officer, after hearing them, assessed the respondents as processors and fixed their liability to pay tax under the said Act from 1st April, 1957, under section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the said Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,500 under section 14(7) of the said Act. The respondents thereupon preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax which appeal was partly allowed. The respondents then filed a revision application to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, who partly modified the order of the lower authorities. The respondents then approached the Tribunal in further revision. At the hearing of this revision application, the Tribunal fixed the liability of the respondents with effect from 1st April, 1958, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur [[1968] 21 S.T.C. 326 (S.C.)]. The Tribunal also reduced the penalty imposed upon the respondents to 20 per cent of the amount of tax payable by them. At the instance of the department, the following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal to the High Court :

(3.) It is obvious that the third question is really a rolled up question and consists of two entirely separate questions. We accordingly split up question No. (3) into the following two questions :