RAMDHARI SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a partnership firm, is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and as such holds a registration certificate. Under the terms of this certificate the appellant is required to submit its returns of taxable turnover annually, according to the Bengali calendar year ending with the 31st Chaitra. This return is to be filed within two months of the closing of the accounting year. The return for the year 1364 B.S. was due to be submitted on or before 13th June, 1958, but the appellant failed to submit the return within the prescribed time. No application was made before the expiry of the time, for extension of the time to file the return.

(2.) On the appellant's failure to submit the return within the due date or to apply for an extension of the time for submission of the return, proceedings were commenced against the appellant under Section 11 of the Act. A notice dated 17th June, 1958, was served upon the appellant calling upon it to appear before the respondent No. 4 on 17th July, 1958, with the material books of accounts. After receipt of the said notice, the appellant made an application on 27th June, 1958, for extension of time to file the return. This application was rejected and thereupon the appellant filed a return on 7th July, 1958. In this return the appellant admitted that it was liable to pay Rs. 283-20 nP. as sales tax, on the taxable turnover at the appellant's head office at Samsi, and branch office at Malda. This admitted liability was discharged by depositing the said sum of Rs. 283-20 nP. in the State Bank of India. The respondent No. 4, however, proceeded with the assessment under Section 11 of the Act. The appellant applied for and obtained several adjournments for production of books of account and other material documents. The case was finally fixed for hearing on 22nd July, 1959, when another application for adjournment was made, but was refused. After such refusal the respondent No. 4 completed the assessment to the best of his judgment and found that the gross turnover was Rs. 7,20,813-4-9 pies and the taxable turnover was Rs. 2,86,500. The respondent No. 4 assessed the total tax liability of the appellant at Rs. 13,700 and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 11(1) of the Act. A notice of demand for Rs. 23,416.80 being the amount due from the appellant after giving credit for the said sum of Rs. 283.20 nP. was issued on 23rd June, 1959. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order for Rs. 13,700 and the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 the appellant moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi on 21st August, 1959. This rule was discharged by Banerjee, J., on 6th December, 1961. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of Banerjee, J.

(3.) Mr. J. K. Sen Gupta, learned advocate for the appellant, firstly contended that Section 11(1) of the Act required that in an assessment under that section, the dealer should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This opportunity, Mr. Sen Gupta argued, was denied to the appellant. It was argued that the statute imposed upon the assessing authority the duty of giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appellant, it was argued, had asked for time to produce books of account and documents, and this prayer of the appellant for time having been refused, the assessment order was bad, as it was made in violation of Section 11(1) of the Act.