SANT SINGH CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS General Sales Tax Reference has arisen in the following circumstances: Firm Sant Singh Charanjit Singh, hereinafter referred as the assessee, is carrying on a karyana business but did not get itself registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On receipt of information that the turnover of the assessee had exceeded the taxable quantum, the Assessing Authority issued a notice under Section 14 of the Act and, after taking into consideration the purchases made by the assessee and adding profits, came to the conclusion that the assessee became liable to pay tax with effect from 26th January, 1966. For coming to this conclusion the Assessing Authority took Rs. 40,000 as the taxable quantum which the assessee had exceeded during the year 1965-66. At the same time, he actually assessed the turnover for the various years as under: 1965-66. . . Rs. 54,000 1966-67. . . Rs. 67,000 1967-68. . . Rs. 83,000 1968-69. . . Rs. 1,03,500 and taxed the assessee accordingly.

(2.) THE assessee filed appeals against the actual assessments as well as against the finding of the Assessing Authority that the assessee became liable, as a dealer under the Act, to pay tax with effect from 26th January, 1966. In the statement of the case it is mentioned that the appeals against the assessments for the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 were accepted and the assessments for all the four years were set aside, vide an order dated 16th March, 1971, which, according to the statement of the case, is annexure D, but actually on the paper-book annexure D is not this order, but only grounds of appeal of the assessee. In order to save time to avoid sending the case back and asking the Tribunal to add the proper annexure, we took a certified copy of that order from the counsel for the assessee. From the copy of the judgment we find that, after discussing the material available from which an inference may be drawn with regard to the turnover of the assessee, the appellate authority, namely, Director of Inspections, Excise and Taxation Department, observed : In view of the paucity of evidence in the case and the absence of material before me to find out as to how the estimates of turnovers for the years in question have been arrived at, I, on grounds of equity and good conscience, am unable to sustain these estimates. I would like to afford another reasonable opportunity to the appellant and also to the department for bringing forth such further evidence regarding the extent and magnitude of the appellant's business. Whatever estimates are made, these should be related to some evidence which should be brought on record and fully discussed. The estimates should not be blind shot in the dark as appears to be the case in the appeal before me.

(3.) AFTER discussing a few points that were raised before the Director of Inspections, he concluded as under : In view of the foregoing discussion I set aside the impugned orders and send back the cases to the Assessing Authority for fresh disposal in the light of observations made above. He should take such further evidence as is furnished by the appellant or by the respondent and draw his conclusions having regard to the evidence.