MD. KALIM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate -General, Assam, appearing for the State.

(2.) Two separate orders of assessment dated March 31,1999 determining the liability of the petitioner to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and also under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, is the subject -matter of challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid assessment orders the petitioner -assessee has been found to be liable to payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as Assam General Sales Tax Act on the transactions relating to the sale of hides and skins. The assessments in question were completed under Sec. 17(6) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 read with Sec. 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Sec. 17(5) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, respectively.

(3.) Mr. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the challenge made has submitted that the assessments in question were ex parte assessments and no notice on the petitioner -assessee to file his returns was received by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also denied the transactions for which the petitioner has been made liable and on that basis has contended that the liability sought to be fastened on the petitioner -assessee by means of the assessment orders is not tenable in law. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application dated September 6, 1999 for review of the assessment orders and that the said application not having been disposed of by orders passed, the authority is liable to be directed to pass necessary orders on the said prayer of the petitioner. It must also be noticed at this stage that in the writ petition filed, the petitioner by reciting certain antecedent facts had sought to attribute certain ill -motives and mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in making the order of assessments. Not only are the said facts disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed; the same have not been pressed at the hearing so as to require the court to go into the same.