RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order is in relation to C.W.J.C. No. 8092 of 2002 [Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. State of Bihar], C.W.J.C. No. 8127 of 2002 (Godrej Saralee Ltd. v. State of Bihar) and C.W.J.C. No. 8128 of 2002 (Godrej Saralee Ltd. v. State of Bihar).

(2.) The disputes in nutshell are that whether the assessing g officer is entitled to make assessment under section 20(l)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act and would be justified in imposing penalty for alleged breach of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 20 without recording a final finding that the petitioners of each case in fact concealed any sales or purchases or any particulars thereof with a view to reduce the amount of tax payable by him. The facts in nutshell are that each of the petitioner is dealing in coils, cakes, mats and other such items which are used as mosquito repellants. Each of the petitioner is registered dealer and is subject to assessment under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Each of the petitioner has furnished its return and paid the tax on the sales G and purchases as shown in the return. It is not in dispute before us that the tax has been paid on the turnover shown in the return. In C.W.J.C. No. 8092 of 2002 (Reckitt Benckiser Ltd. v. State of Bihar) annexure 5 series are the orders under challenge which are in relation to the assessment year 2000-2001 and assessment year H 2001-2002, writ application C.W.J.C. No. 8127 of 2002 and 8128 of 2002 have been filed by M/s. Godrej Saralee Ltd., being aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. Impugned orders have been annexed at annexure 9 in each of the writ application.

(3.) It is not in dispute before us that show cause notices were issued to each of the petitioner, they had filed their show cause and after affording an opportunity of hearing to each of them the final orders were passed against their interest. In C.W.J.C. No. 8092 of 2002 (Reckitt Benckiser Ltd. v. State of Bihar) the assessing officer observed that the said writ applicant did not pay the tax in accordance with law and instead of paying 8 per cent tax had been paid 4 per cent only, it accordingly fixed the tax liability and directed imposition of the penalty under section 20(l)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act. Similarly in C.W.J.C. No. 8127 of 2002 and 8128 of 2002 (Godrej Saralee Ltd. v. State of Bihar) the learned assessing officer observing that each of the petitioner-dealer did not pay the tax in accordance with law and paid only 4 per cent instead of 8 per cent and thereby filed a wrong return. In each of the case the learned assessing officer observed that each of the dealer/petitioner paid less tax and thereby caused loss of revenue to the State. In accordance with the provisions of the Act after finding them guilty it had imposed the penalty as provided under section 20(l)(a) of the Bihar Finance Act ("the Act" for short).