GEETA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. K. Ray, for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department. Since ail these cases involve common questions, they are disposed of by this common order, which shall cover each of them.

(2.) PETITIONER calls in question legality of notices issued to it under section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") and rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (in short "the Central Rules" ). From paragraph 4. 1 of the writ application, we find that the petitioner after complying with the terms of notice (annexure 1) requested the concerned Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 2) to communicate reasons for forming the belief that the turnover of the petitioner for the several years had escaped assessment or had been under-assessed. The Sales Tax Officer has not yet communicated reasons for such proceeding. As has been observed by this Court in Suburban Industries Kalinga Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar [1993] 90 STC 28o, after complying with the requirements of notice if the notice responds the Sales Tax Officer to communicate reasons necessitating reassessment proceeding they are to be indicated in order to enable him to meet the charges on the basis of which the reassessment proceeding has been initiated. That has not been done in the present case.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing seated in the said Manual can be in contrast to prescriptions under the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (for short "the Rules" ). Mr. S. C. Lal, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand contended that the order sheet sometimes contains administrative directions, and matters of confidential nature which cannot be passed on to the dealer.