STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MURALIMANOHAR PRABHUDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the rev0enue, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has referred the following questions for opinion of the court under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 :

(2.) THE learned standing counsel contends that the assessee was entitled to notice of the material collected by the revenue and when the matter was confronted to the assessee's partner, the requirements of natural justice were completely satisfied. There is no necessity beyond confrontation to give any specific notice to the assessee that the assessing officer intended to utilise the material so collected against the assessee. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee placing reliance on three decisions of this Court to which we shall presently make reference contends that in the circumstances as present here the assessing officer has two obligations, namely, (i) to put the assessee to notice of the information collected and (ii) also to give notice to the assessee that he has the intention of utilising such material against him. In Muralimohan Prabhudayal v. State of Orissa [1970] 26 STC 22, which was a case of the present assessee, two questions had been referred for opinion of this Court, namely :

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , there had been confrontation and once there has been disclosure of the material, the rules of natural justice must be taken to have been satisfied and the action of the assessing officer cannot be called in question for want of notice to the assessee that such material was going to be utilised against him. The Tribunal clearly went wrong in culling out from the reported decisions such a requirement. Once the rules of natural justice were found to have been satisfied, the accounts were liable to rejection and the assessing officer was entitled to make a best judgment assessment. The first question has; therefore, to be answered against the assessee and we would hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was wrong in law to have held that the confronted facts became untested material for want of warning to the assessee that they were going to be used in the assessment.