(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicant G. C. Mehta, a P. W. D. contractor, applied for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition and other appropriate writ, direction or order, in respect of a notice issued by the commissioner of Sales Tax. Madhya Pradesh.
(2.) THE applicant was assessed to tax for the period between 1st April 1953 and 31st March 1954 by an order of the Sales Tax Officer, Satna, dated 13th October, 1954, under Section 11 (3) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act (Act XXI of 1947), as extended to the Vindhya Pradesh region. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer reviewed his order and passed a fresh order of assessment. In accordance therewith, the applicant was found to have paid a sum of Rs. 6,900 in excess of the tax due. and the applicant, therefore, applied for a refund of the amount. During these proceedings the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax acting suo motu revised the assessment and passed an order dated 1st October 1957 whereby the resultant tax payable was determined at Rs. 6,825/9/ -. Thus, the excess payment in consequence of this revisional order worked out to be Rs. 1,977/6/6. On appeal by the applicant, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, jabalpur, enhanced that tax from Rs. 7,662/1/- to Rs. 14,561/10/ -. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a revision before the Tribunal, which accepted his contention that the enhancement of the tax in revision by the Assistant Commissioner of sales Tax was without jurisdiction as no notice required under Rule 80 of the Rules framed under the Act had been issued to him. The Tribunal, accordingly, had quashed the proceedings for enhancement and set aside the orders of the assistant and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. As a result, the original order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was restored.
(3.) PRETENDING to act in his suo moto revisional jurisdiction, the Commissioner of sales Tax has now issued a notice under Rule 80 dated 8th January 1965/4th march 1965, to the following effect: