KONARK TYRE AND TREAD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a proceeding under section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act"), the petitioner after having responded to the notice issued, requested the Sales Tax Officer, Ward D, Ganjam I Circle, to communicate the reasons necessitating reopening of assessment. By letter dated July 24, 1995, the Sales Tax Officer intimated that the reasons have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the statutory notice.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for petitioner, paragraph 3 of the notice only states about escarpment of assessment/under-assessment/non-assessme due to tax having been compounded when compounding was not possible, in the statutory form, and therefore, that cannot be the reason for initiation of the proceeding. Learned counsel for the Revenue supported the action of the Sales Tax Officer.

(3.) AS observed by this Court in Suburban Industries Kalinga Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar [1993] 90 STC 280 (speaking through one of us, A. Pasayat, J.), reasons are not to be indicated in the notice issued to the dealer while initiating the proceeding. But if the dealer responds and participates in the proceeding, it is open to him to seek for the reasons which necessitated the reopening of the proceeding. At that stage the assessing officer cannot take the plea that the reasons are not to be indicated.