MANU RAM BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Act 19 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It relates to the assessment of sales tax for the period from 1st April, 1960, to 31st March, 1961.

(2.) The relevant facts which have given rise to this present reference may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is a firm at Chaibassa carrying on business in kirana and edible oil. The dealer showed a G.T.O. (gross turnover) of Rs. 7,79,284 for the year 1960-61. He had been asked to produce his books of account before the assessing officer. The books of account were, however, disbelieved and, therefore, under Section 16(3) of the Act assessment was made to the best of his judgment by the Assistant Superintendent, Sales Tax, Chaibassa, on 7th August, 1961, on a G.T.O. of Rs. 10,13,284. The grounds on which the assessment was made on this turnover were : because il was found that the dealer had maintained duplicate sets of accounts; secondly, the dealer refused to allow his stock of goods to be examined by the Inspector and thirdly, the dealer had received consignments through rail and road which had not been duly accounted for. The dealer preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax which was heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chotanagpur Division, who dismissed his appeal on 30th September, 1963. The dealer then preferred an application in revision to the Board of Revenue, Bihar, and as by that time the Commercial Tax Tribunal had been constituted under the Act, so the revision was heard by the aforesaid Tribunal and it was rejected. The findings of the Tribunal were to the effect that the dealer was maintaining duplicate sets of accounts, that he prevented the Inspecting Officer of the department to inspect his stock of goods in the business place and that he had not accounted for certain goods received by him through rail and road.

(3.) The dealer thereafter filed an application before the Tribunal for referring the questions of law to the High Court. In the application which was submitted to the Tribunal as many as ten questions were framed, but at the time of the hearing three questions of law were only pressed on behalf of the dealer for being referred to the High Court. The Tribunal after having duly considered the submissions rejected the application for reference. The dealer then moved the High Court against this order. A Division Bench of this court by its order dated 24th August, 1966, directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions to the court and state a case accordingly :