SUNIL KUMAR ROY Vs. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the Petitioner has challenged an assessment order dated February 10,1968, and two notices dated February 26, and March 15, 1968, respectively. The assessment order was made by the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Central Circle, Bihar, Calcutta. The short facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Bhowra Coke Company, being the sole proprietor of the firm concerned. The Petitioner manufactures cokes and its bye -products or derivatives; his coke plant and works are located at Bhowra in the district of Dhanbad, Bihar. The Petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act at Dhanbad. The financial year of the Petitioner for the purpose of submitting return under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is from April 1 to March 31. The Petitioner, it appears, did not file the return for the quarter ended June 30, 1967, in time. In application filed on August 8, 1967, he prayed for time to file the, return for the quarter from March to June, 1967, by September 2, 1967. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected this prayer and in his turn issued a notice under Sec. 14(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act calling upon the Petitioner to show cause for non -filing of his return in proper time. In reply, the Petitioner again asked for time and ultimately, when this prayer was, also rejected, filed the return for the quarter ended June 30, 1967, on September 11, 1967. In this return the Petitioner is stated to have admitted his liability to pay tax of Rs. 553 under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Rs. 7,854 -63 P. under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Petitioner did not, however, make any payment of the admitted taxes as he was required to do under the relevant Act and Rules. The Commercial Tax Officer thereupon proceeded to complete the assessment on quarterly basis and served the requisite notice of hearing under Ss. 16(4) and 20(4) upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner appeared through lawyer and made an application for time to produce his returns. The case was adjourned till November 20,1967. On that date, however, the Petitioner made another application for a further extension of time for production of books of ' accounts. The date for examination of accounts was thereupon extended to January 24, 1968, and on this day also the Petitioner again applied through his lawyer for a further extension of time on the ground that his accountant was pre -occupied. The Commercial Tax Officer informed the Petitioner by a letter dated January 24, 1968, that the Petitioner was granted another extension of time for three days and, if he failed to produce accounts by January 24, 1968, ex parte orders of assessment were to be passed in this case. On January 27, 1968, the Petitioner came up with another application for adjournment of the case on the ground that his accountant was still pre -occupied. The Petitioner was informed by a letter dated February 5, 1968, that the Commercial Tax Officer was not prepared to adjourn the case till the first week of March as he had been asked to do but that the case was being adjourned to February 8, 1968, for passing ex parte orders. The apparent intention, as the officer says in the assessment order, was to give the dealer a final opportunity so that he could produce the books of accounts on February 8, 1968, if he chose to do so. The Petitioner, however, wrote back through his Advocate to say that he was unable to appear on February 8, 1968, on account of his accountant's preoccupation. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act read with Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax Act (Bihar Rules, 1957). This order of assessment is dated February 10, 1968, and is found annexed to the petition. The Respondent No. 1 also imposed upon the Petitioner a penalty of Rs. 100 and Rs. 620 under Sec. 14(4) and Sec. 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax Act (Bihar Rules, 1957) for delay in filing of return and for failure to pay the admitted tax liability for the period of assessment, namely, April to June, 1967. The Respondent No. 1 also issued on February 26, 1968, a notice upon the Petitioner calling upon him to pay the sum of Rs. 20,400 being the assessed tax of Rs. 19,680 and the two penalties, of Rs. 100 and Rs. 620 respectively. This notice was served upon the Petitioner on February 28,1968. Further notice dated March 15, 1968, was served upon the Petitioner directing him to pay the said sum by March 18,1968. The Petitioner now seeks to challenge the aforesaid order of assessment as well as the said two notices dated February 26,1968, and March 15, 1968, respectively.

(2.) Though the petition contains various grounds on which the assessment order is sought to be challenged, Mr. Panja appearing for the Petitioner advanced only two arguments in support of this challenge. We shall deal with his arguments one by one.

(3.) It was contended by Mr. Panja that the Commercial Tax Superintendent had no jurisdiction to make assessment on a quarterly basis and that he could make the assessment only on an annual basis, that is to say, for one entire financial year. The order of assessment challenged in this petition relates only to one quarter, that is to say, to the period April 1, 1967 to June 30, 1967. Therefore, it was argued, this assessment is bad.