LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-100

OM PARKASH KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 20, 2010
OM PARKASH KRISHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, vide order dated 27.12.1999 has referred the following questions of law for consideration and opinion of this Court:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the business premises of the appellant were inspected by the Income Tax authority, both at Jagadhri and Delhi on 28.1.1987. During the course of inspection, the income tax authorities impounded certain documents containing incriminating material. On the basis of the material contained in those documents namely "Chetan Note Book", the Income Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant has suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 6,18,54,925/-. Accordingly, the assessee firm was brought to income tax on the basis of average gross profit for the past three years, both in respect of head office at Jagadari and branch office at Delhi.

(3.) Upon receipt of this information relating to suppression of sales by the assessee firm from the income tax authorities, the Assessing Authority reopened the case for assessment for the year 1985-86 under Section 31 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1956. Thus, an additional demand of Rs. 46,39,165/- was raised which was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who vide its order dated 12.10.1990 remanded the case with clear observations that the Assessing Authority should take fresh decision after making proper enquiries and confronting the appellant with the incriminating material in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Assessing Authority after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard considered the case afresh on merits and reduced the quantum of additional demand to Rs. 33,93,618/- by an order dated 21.9.1992. Against the order dated 21.9.1992 passed by the Assessing Authority under the re- assessment proceedings, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A) who vide order dated 26.3.1993 dismissed the same on merits. Still aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 26.3.1993 before the learned Tribunal, was dismissed, vide its order dated 17.8.1994. The assessee then filed an application for review of the order dated 17.8.1994 passed by the Member Sales Tax Tribunal Haryana which too failed on the ground of maintainability, vide an order dated 8.2.1995. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeals filed by the assessee were primarily dismissed on the ground that the firm never approached the courts with clean hands and it failed to produce the photocopies of account books despite various opportunities and therefore, the judgments cited by the assessee firm could not be relied upon.