KALINGA ISPAT UDYOG Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question legality of proceeding initiated under section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act"), for the assessment year 1989-90.

(2.) CASE of petitioner in a nutshell is as follows : Petitioner manufactures M. S. rods and in addition undertakes trading in iron and steel. Books of accounts were produced before the Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Rajgangpur, who completed assessment by raising demand of Rs. 3,200. Subsequently notice dated March 28, 1995, under section 12 (8) of the Act was issued on the following basis (as extracted from the notice) :

(3.) IN our view, the dealer has right to show cause against proposed reassessment and to question jurisdiction of the taxing authority to the proceeding under section 12 (8) of the Act. It is however to be noted that notice is however, not the foundation for exercising jurisdiction. Requisite condition can be substantiated even from record. Apex Court had the occasion to consider the question in cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Income-tax Officer v. Biju Patnaik [1991] 188 ITR 247 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 464 validity of notice directing reopening of assessment under section 148 of the said Act was sustained on the basis of record and affidavit, even when notice had not ex facie disclosed or established due application of mind. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 2390 the position was again reiterated.