BIHAR PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceeding purported to have been initiated under section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and also the notices, as contained in annexures 1 to 3 and the order of reassessment (annexure 5) passed on September 25, 1997. The case of the petitioner is that it was previously a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing plastic goods having its factory in the industrial area at Kokar in Ranchi. It was registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The partnership firm was subsequently converted into a public limited company, and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) FOR the year 1983-84 the petitioner had submitted quarterly return and deposited the requisite sales tax payable under the Act. Ultimately, a final order of assessment was made on August 5, 1987 and a demand notice was served on the petitioner directing it to pay the balance sales tax payable according to the assessment order, which the petitioner did by depositing the balance amount on August 29, 1988. A copy of the assessment order has been annexed as annexure 4.

(3.) AT the hearing of this writ petition counsel for the petitioner has urged before us five submissions, which are as follows : Firstly, it was submitted that the notices issued to the petitioner (annexures 1 to 3) for reopening the concluded assessment were not in the proper and prescribed form, and also did not indicate as to under which section the notice was being given. In the absence of a proper notice, the proceeding under section 19 (1) of the Act was not a valid proceeding. Secondly, the original order of assessment, as contained in annexure 4, was perfectly justified and valid, and as such there was no need for any reassessment pursuant to the audit objection. Thirdly, the audit objection does not amount to an "information" within the meaning of section 19 (1) of the Act, and such information is a condition precedent to the initiation of a proceeding under that provision. In the absence of such information the proceeding under section 19 (1) was not justified. Fourthly, mere change of opinion by the prescribed authority on the same set of facts and materials on record would not constitute information for the purpose of reassessment under section 19 (1) of the Act. Lastly, even if the proceeding is deemed to be a review under section 47 of the Act, the same was not competent in the absence of sanction, as required by that provision.