TELCO LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the revised assessment order for the period 1982 -83 as contained in annexure 6 (wrongly mentioned as annexure 3) and consequential notice of demand (annexure 4 ). It has also prayed for restraining the respondents from recovering the demand as made in annexure 4.

(2.) THE petitioner is a public limited company which manufactures vehicles, excavators and their spare parts and sells the same throughout India, Nepal and Bhutan. It also exports to other countries both directly as also through its agent Telco Exports Limited, Bombay.

(3.) MR . Jain, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referring to the order of assessment dated March 23, 1991 (annexure 1), strongly contended that the assessing officer completely erred in law in not taking note of the relief already allowed by the respondent No. 3 in his order dated January 11, 1995, by reason of which he modified the assessment order dated March 23, 1991. According to him, due to relief granted by the superior authority the demand comes to Rs. 47,58,139 whereas by reason of the impugned order dated June 15, 1995 the demand comes to Rs. 50,29,237 which is apparently wrong because the assessing officer proceeded on the basis of the order dated March 23, 1991 completely ignoring the fact that the appellate authority modified the said order on January 11, 1995. The learned counsel further contended that the order impugned is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the notice of hearing dated June 7, 1995 was served on the petitioner on June 10, 1995 fixing June 15, 1995 for compliance but on the same date the impugned order was passed. According to him, section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 provides that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee and the impugned order does not show that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the order dated March 23, 1991 would not have been reviewed by the assessing authority merely on the basis of sanction given by the respondent No. 3 inasmuch as the said order had already merged in the appellate order dated January 11, 1995 which could not have been reviewed by the assessing officer thereafter.