LACHHMANDAS GENUMAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions arise for consideration in these cases. Hence, common arguments are heard and the cases are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) PETITIONER in M. P. No. 3340 of 1989 carries on business in purchase and sale of utensils. Petition relates to assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, the State Act) for the period 13-11-1985 to 2-11-1986. He is a registered dealer under the State Act. Sales Tax Officer completed the assessment on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad. According to the petitioner, though he maintained true and correct accounts and submitted true and correct returns, S. T. O. issued notice in Form-XVI dated 6-11-1987 against proposed assessment and levy of penalty under Section 43 (1 ). Notice proposed levy of penalty under Section 17 (3) and assessment under Section 18 (4) of the State Act. The petitioners contended that the notice was illegal as it was issued without application of mind, that the petitioner was not supplied copy of the report of the Flying Squad and was denied opportunity to effectively meet the case of the Department. Assessment was completed by order dated 24-2-1989 levying penalty of Rs. 24,000/- under Section 43 (1) for alleged concealment of turnover and submission of false return. Assessment was completed long after period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act was over. This was done on account of extension of time granted under notification dated 26-12-1988 which is challenged as illegal since the notification is ultra vires the powers of the State Government. On the basis of the above submissions, the petitioner contends that the notice and assessment are liable to be quashed. The further contention is that Section 38 (3) (c) of the State Act is arbitrary and unconstitutional as also the notification dated 26-12-1988. Similar are the contentions of the petitioners in other writ petitions. On behalf of the respondents, return has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners did not file appeals against assessment orders as they are required to deposit a part of the amount due and they have preferred revision petitions and the same are pending and, therefore, the contentions raised in the writ petitions regarding the invalidity of the show cause notices and the assessment order will be perused in the revision petitions and not in these writ petitions. Learned counsel confined arguments to the following points :