RAJENDRA NAHATA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of assessment dated November 10, 1993 under section 17 (1) read with section 17 (1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 for the period July and August, 1993, vide annexure X to the writ petition.

(2.) SEQUEL to the aforesaid assessment respondent No. 3 [the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery) and Bakijai Officer, Guwahati] issued notice No. 1960-61 dated January 20, 1994 directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,27,20,892 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and notice No. 2107 dated February 9, 1994 issued by the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to appear personally on February 23, 1994, for default of payment of the aforesaid sum. The said two notices are also assailed in this proceeding.

(3.) THE Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit-C, by letter dated August 2, 1993 communicated the petitioner about the information that was available before him about the sale of tickets of Rs. 2,65,21,922 with effect from July 1, 1993 to July 31, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes also informed that the sale of lottery tickets attracts the liability under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 with effect from July 1, 1993 at the rate of 10 per cent as per item No. 94 (of Schedule II) of the Act and he was to apply for registration. By the said letter it was also made known to the petitioner about the statutory requirement of registration by July 31, 1993. The petitioner was accordingly advised to apply for registration and get himself registered immediately. He was also to deposit the taxes due for the month of July 1993 immediately. The petitioner accordingly applied for the registration and a certificate of registration in form III was issued in his favour making him liable to pay tax with effect from July 1, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes issued a notice dated September 28, 1993, asking the petitioner to show cause in writing and to appear personally before the said officer on October 5, 1993 as to why the penalty should not be imposed under the Act for his failure to submit the return with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 inspite of issue of reminder. By notice No. Gau (C)/c-6/10819 (A) date October 1, 1993 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be assessed summarily to the best of his judgment as per the provisions of the Act in addition to penalty for his failure to submit returns with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 in spite of notice issued on him. The Superintendent of Taxes by his notice dated October 8, 1993 advised the petitioner once again to submit the return within October 14, 1993 and the said notice is quoted below :