SUBHASH AND COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is, whether a case for setting aside of an assessment order which according to petitioner were ex parte and without notice to the petitioner is made out ? In other words, the question is whether procedure prescribed for service of notice as contemplated under Rule 63 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, was followed by the department before passing the impugned assessment orders. According to petitioner, it was not followed and hence the impugned assessment must be set aside and fresh de novo assessment be made after giving the petitioner an opportunity. Whereas, the department defend the impugned assessment.

(2.) PETITIONER is a proprietory concern of which one Subhash Kimtee is a proprietor. The petitioner at all relevant time was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron goods. It is the case of petitioner that he, i. e. , Subhash Kimtee continued with the business up to November 7, 1980 because he secured an employment in the Reserve Bank of India, w. e. f. November 10, 1980 as clerk.

(3.) THE dispute in this petition relates to the periods 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. It is the case of petitioner that in February, 1992 he came to know when he was served with a demand that not only he was assessed ex parte on September 12, 1984 for these years but also reassessed ex parte on December 13, 1990. He, then obtained certified copies and filed three revisions before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. By three separate but common orders dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) these three revisions were dismissed and orders of assessment as also reassessment were upheld. It is against these three orders (annexure P9), the petitioner has filed this writ.