BALARAM DAS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), carrying on business at Remuna in the district of Balasore. He was assessed to sales tax under the Act for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 by the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THE assessing officer relied upon fraud report of August, 1968, of the inspecting staff. He also found that sale of paper containers on several occasions had been shown though purchase of such containers had never been accounted for. Ten quintals of unaccounted paddy were also found in stock. The account books were found not to have been written up to date. On 24th February, 1969, it was noticed that the accounts had not been written after 1st April, 1968. There was also a shortage of kerosene oil and purchase vouchers of certain, items were not available though asked for. Accordingly while completing the assessment under section 12 (2) of the Act for the two years, the assessing officer enhanced the turnover by Rs. 10,000 for the first year and Rs. 8,500 for the second year. Sometime thereafter, the assessing officer found discrepancy in the accounts relating to sales as also stock of agarbathi. Some unaccounted slips were found in the business premises of the petitioner. For boiled rice, paper bags, etc. , accounts were not available. Shortage of 824 litres of kerosene oil was found in the stock which was not explained. The assessing officer accordingly took action under section 12 (8) of the Act for the very two years and enhanced the turnover by Rs. 10,000 for each of the periods. Later, action was taken under section 23 (4) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise the estimates and the Assistant Commissioner after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard enhanced the estimates of turnover for both the years. For the first year, the enhancement in the taxable turnover was Rs. 42,000 and for the second year it was Rs. 70,000. These two writ applications are filed assailing the action of the Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the consolidated revisional order dated 31st December, 1971, passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) THE only point that remains to be considered is whether jurisdiction has been properly exercised in this case (conceding existence of jurisdiction ). As already indicated the very first order of assessment for both the years was under section 12 (2) of the Act. On 11th January, 1971, the assessing officer passed a second set of assessment orders under section 12 (8) of the Act having found some concrete suppressions. The order of assessment (annexure 2) clearly shows that the suppressions related to both the years of assessment. He accordingly enhanced the turnover by a further sum of Rs. 10,000 for each of the years. The Assistant Commissioner took sue motu action because he was of the view that the estimates adopted under section 12 (8) of the Act were not appropriate. In paragraph 10 of the impugned order, he gave the particulars of suppressions and then stated :