SRI PANKAJ KUMAR DASGUPTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a partner of a firm namely, M/s. S. Das and Company, Agartala. The said firm (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") carries on the business of sale and supply of motor parts tyres, etc. It is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with effect from June 9, 1976. The petitioner failed to submit the returns under section 8 of the Act for the three quarters covering the period from July 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Taxes from time to time in that regard. The petitioner did not comply with the same. Opportunity was also given in terms of the proviso to section 9 (4) of the Act. The last date was fixed on May 27, 1977. The petitioner did not avail of the same. Under the circumstances, the Superintendent of Taxes made his own enquiries for the purpose of making summary assessment. He sent his Inspector to visit the business premises of the petitioner to examine the books of account. The Inspector visited on more than one occasion but the accounts were no made available to him by the petitioner on one plea or the other. The Superintendent of Taxes therefore, estimated the turnover of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available to him and made the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 9 (4) of the Act. By a common order of assessment he estimated the turnover of the petitioner for the two quarters covering the period from July 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 31,500 and interest at Rs. 900. The total demand was Rs. 32,400. By another order of assessment, the turnover for the quarter ending March 31, 1977, was estimated. The tax payable for this quarter was determined at Rs. 17,500 and interest at Rs. 200, the total demand amounted to Rs. 17,700. Demand notices were duly served on the petitioner for the aforesaid two amounts. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal or revision against the said orders of assessment nor did he file any petition under section 10 of the Act for cancellation of the best judgment assessment. He deposited a sum of Rs. 26,813. 40 out of the demand for Rs. 32,400 for the two quarters ending December 31, 1976 and a sum of Rs. 11,500 out of the demand for Rs. 17,700 for the quarter ending March 31, 1977. Two sums of Rs. 5,586. 40 and Rs. 6,200 remained outstanding against the petitioner.

(2.) THEREAFTER on December 13, 1978, the petitioner filed petitions before the Superintendent of Taxes under section 12 (1) of the Act for rectification of mistake in the orders of assessment on the ground that the assessments made by him were arbitrary and not based on materials. A prayer was made that the petitioner should be assessed as per the particulars furnished in the rectification petitions. The Superintendent of Taxes by his order dated March 30, 1979, rejected the petitions on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. Against the said orders the petitioner moved revision petitions before the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes by a common order dated March 3, 1980, rejected the revision petitions on the ground that what was sought for in the rectification petition was redetermination of the turnover of the petitioner and no rectification of any mistake apparent from the records. The Commissioner of Taxes, therefore held that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the scope of section 12 (1) of the Act and, accordingly, dismissed the revision petitions. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner these two writ petitions have been filed. The sole contention of the petitioner is that the best judgment assessment made by the Superintendent of Taxes by his orders of assessment dated June 13, 1977, under section 9 (4) of the Act is not based on any evidence on record and, as such, the assessment itself is a "mistake apparent from the records".

(3.) FOR proper appreciation of the rival submissions, it will be expedient to refer to section 12 of the Act which, so far as relevant reads as follows :