DWIJENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions the important question of law that arises for consideration relates to the nature, scope and ambit of the powers and duties of the Superintendent of Taxes in the matter of making an assessment under section 9 (3) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. As the facts and questions of law involved in both the petitions are identical they are taken up together.

(2.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of a business run under the name and style of M/s. Bijli House at Agartala and carries on the business of selling and supplying electrical goods, radios and parts thereof. He also undertakes works contracts. In respect of the aforesaid business, he is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (shortly "the Act" ). The petitioner submitted his returns of turnover from time to time showing turnover for each quarter and paid the sales tax due on the basis thereof. Returns were so submitted for the years ending March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979, March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981. The years relevant for the present petitions are years ending March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981. The Superintendent of Taxes did not take any action on the said returns submitted by the petitioner from time to time till August 25, 1981, when he issued notices under section 9 (2) of the Act asking the petitioner to appear and produce accounts and documents in support of the returns for all the four years. The date was extended to October 15, 1981. The petitioner produced the accounts and documents which were examined by the Superintendent of Taxes. He, however, wanted the petitioner to furnish certain statements on October 21, 1981, but as the assessments for four years were taken up together and it was difficult to prepare and furnish the same in such a short time, the petitioner prayed for time. The Superintendent of Taxes, did not allow the same, rejected the returns submitted by the petitioner, noted a few defects in the accounts and held that he was not inclined to accept the accounts and the returns as correct and complete. He specifically stated that he could not take any lenient view of the failure of the petitioner to furnish the informations asked for by him. He construed it "as tendency of evasion of taxes". With the aforesaid observation, the Superintendent of Taxes rejected the returns and determined the turnover of the petitioner "to the best of his judgment" for the years ending March 31, 1978 and March 31, 1979 at Rs. 50,000 per year; and for the years ending March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981, at Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively and computed the tax payable and completed the assessments accordingly. Being aggrieved by the said assessments, the petitioner filed revision petitions before the Commissioner which were rejected. Review petitions against the same were also rejected. The petitioner finally moved this Court by filing the present writ petitions challenging the two orders of assessment for the years ending March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Act deals with assessment. It reads :