JAI MAHADEV TRADERS Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions are involved in all these cases and as the legal questions are also identical, all the four petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONER in all these petitions have challenged various orders passed by the Commercial Tax Authority assessing the Commercial Tax on the petitioner establishment for various periods. Grievance of the petitioners are that initially tax was assessed and the assessment orders were passed for various period. Petitioner had purchased goods from registered dealer on which local tax were paid by the dealers and therefore, goods so purchased were exempted. However, after the assessment orders were passed the same is reviewed and re-assessment ordered on the ground that the certificate of registration of the dealer from whom purchase have been made by the petitioners are cancelled, retrospectively, assessment were re-opened and after re-opening of the assessment without granting proper opportunity to the petitioner, orders of re-assessment have been passed and the revision filed by the petitioners have also been dismissed without taking note of various irregularities committed in the matter of re-assessment. It is pointed out by Shri N. K. Jain, learned senior counsel that when the transaction in question for which re-assessment took place the certificate of registration of the dealer from whom purchase was effected had not been cancelled. Placing reliance to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of commissioner, Sales Tax vs. Govind Trading Co. Morena decided on 19th september, 1995 and reported in 16 TLD (1996) 185, Shri Jain submits that if on the date of transaction dealer was having a valid registration then on the ground of cancelling of registration on a subsequent date retrospectively, transaction made cannot be re-opened and tax assessed on the ground that registration of the dealer stood cancelled as on the date of transaction. Accordingly, Shri Jain submits that in all these cases action taken on the ground of retrospective cancellation of dealers registration is unsustainable. That apart it is emphasized by Shri Jain that order of re-assessment have been done without hearing the petitioner and without granting them any opportunity to give their say in the matter.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed the return and have refuted the aforesaid and it is only stated by them that finding irregularities in the matter, re-assessment was ordered and as after re-assessment, petitioner were granted opportunity of hearing during the proceeding of revision, there is no irregularities in the matter. It is pointed out by Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government advocate for respondents that in some of the transaction registration certificate is cancelled prospectively and transaction in question were entered into after cancellation of the registration and therefore, contention of Shri N. K. Jain, learned counsel for petitioner is refuted.