STATE OF ORISSA Vs. TORMAL RAMESWARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") on the application of the Revenue statement of the case has been made on the following question :

(2.) IN spite of valid service of notice, the dealer has not preferred to appear in this Court and the learned Standing Counsel, Commercial Tax Department was beard in the matter.

(3.) ASSESSMENT on the basis of accounts and the assessment to the best of judgment are two different categories. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Act deal with the assessment to the best of judgment. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that in case all the terms of the notice for assessment under sub-section (2) are not complied with, the assessment can be completed to the best of judgment. Thus, sub-section (3) provides for examination of accounts and rejection thereof for the purpose of completing the assessment to the best of judgment. Sub-section (4), however, contains the legislative mandate for best judgment assessment. The dealer is only to produce evidence in support of the return. In this case, the dealer produced his books of accounts in support of the return which have been rejected on the basis of the report of the Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, to the effect that the dealer had transactions with M/s. Nandalal Narayan Prasad of Jharsuguda which is not reflected in the books of account of the dealer. Once existence of such a report is not disputed, it is the burden of the dealer to prove to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that there is no such transaction as alleged. The dealer did not claim that the books of account seized did not contain entries of such transaction. For the said purpose, he could have examined the representatives of M/s. Nandalal Narayan Prasad in support. Instead, he wanted examination of the seized accounts throwing the burden on the department to prove that there was transaction. Where it is the burden of the dealer to support his return, failure to produce the seized accounts even if requested for the same would not by itself amount to violation of the principle of natural justice, if the dealer could have proved his assertion otherwise.