GULABCHAND LAXMINARAYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the assessee the two questions which we are asked to answer are : (

(2.) THE material facts are that the Sales Tax Officer, Bilaspur, made three best judgment assessment orders against the assessee, Gulabchand Laxminarayan of Pendra, in April and May, 1958, for the periods from 19th October, 1952, to 6th October, 1953; from 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954; and from 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955. The assessee's first appeals were dismissed. His three second appeals before the Board of Revenue were also disallowed so far as the assessment of tax was concerned. In those appeals the assessee con tended that the best judgment assessments should not have been made against him when he had already applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the case which was fixed for 8th March, 1958, and that the best judgment assessments for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 were imaginary inasmuch as they were arrived at on the basis of the average turnover of the previous three years and the average thus arrived at included the best judgment estimate made for one year in the case of turnover determined for the year 1953-54 and for two years in the case of turnover determined for the year 1954-55. Both these contentions were rejected by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) IN our judgment, this reference should not have been made at all, by the Board of Revenue for the reason that the questions pro pounded do not at all relate to any question of law arising out of the Board of Revenue's order. The question whether the Sales Tax Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's prayer for adjournment on 8th March, 1958, is plainly not a question of law. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, did not dispute this. He, however, contended that the second question, namely, with regard to the estimate of the turnover and of the deductions for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 being arbitrary and without basis, was a question of law. We fail to see how the second question could be said to be a question of law when Section 11 (4) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, does not prescribe any particular method or pro cess which the Sales Tax Officer is required to follow in making a best judgment assessment.