BHARAT AUTOMOBILES GAUHATI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Board of Sales Tax, Assam, under section 32(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act XVII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) THE reference has been made at the instance of the petitioners assessees whose head office is situated in Calcutta. The petitioners are dealers in motor vehicles and their spare parts of various kinds. They opened a branch at Gauhati on 1st April, 1949. Until the opening of this branch, it appears that M/s. Nagarmal Gaurishankar, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati, were acting as agents of the petitioners and sold goods on their behalf. But, on the opening of their office at Gauhati, M/s. Nagarmal Gaurishankar ceased to be their selling agent. On receipt of information about the petitioner's business, the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, entered upon their place of business and seized certain books of account on 21st January, 1950. The petitioners thereafter filed an application on 24th January, 1950, for registration under the Act, and they duly obtained a certificate of registration from the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati. The application appears to have originally contained the words "with head office at Dibrugarh". But these words have been penned through, and it is said in the statement of case submitted by the Board that this was done with the consent of the petitioners because of the fact that their Dibrugarh office was started long after the opening of their office at Gauhati. It is also stated by the Board that this Dibrugarh office existed only for a short period and it does not appear that the petitioners had at any stage thereafter objected to their being registered at Gauhati. It appears that later on they, in fact, got themselves registered separately for their business at Dibrugarh. It is admitted on all hands that there was no written requisition by the Superintendent of Taxes requiring the petitioners to get themselves registered. After registration, the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, issued a notice on 31st January, 1950, under section 16(2) of the Act, directing the petitioners to submit returns of their total turnover for the return period ending with September, 1949. Pursuant to that notice, the petitioners filed their return on 7th February, 1950, for the period ending with September, 1949. They also submitted two other returns on 30th June, 1950 - one for 1st October, 1949, to 30th December, 1949, and another for 1st January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950. All these returns covered a period beginning from April, 1949, when the business admittedly commenced at Gauhati, and ending with 31st March, 1950; and there is no doubt, on these returns, that the gross turnover of the petitioners during each of these periods was much beyond the taxable quantum. Later, it appears that the petitioners submitted revised returns on 14th October, 1950, - one for the period ending on 30th September, 1949, and another for the period ending on 31st March, 1950.

(3.) THE petitioners appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes against the order of assessment, and this officer disposed of the appeals by his order, dated 6th September, 1953. He substantially rejected the objections of the petitioners against the assessments, but directed the Superintendent of Taxes to give a further opportunity to the petitioners to establish their claim for deduction under section 15(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment period ending with 31st March, 1950. For the earlier period ending with 30th September, 1949, the Assistant Commissioner was of opinion that, in view of the fact that the books of the petitioners had been virtually accepted, they should be accepted in respect of the turnover for other goods also, and a fresh assessment should be made for that period after ascertaining the turnover of other goods during the period as per account books of the petitioners. The questions substantially raised by the petitioners in appeal before that officer were :