SOLAR KASHMIR Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO grounds have been urged in support of the petition : (1) notice in form ST-17 had not been issued making the assessment; and (2) no notice in form ST-65 had been issued before imposing penalty.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, we do not find any merit in either of the two submissions. Before the authorities, the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the non-service of notice in form ST-17 before it made assessment. This point cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the writ petition.

(3.) WE are afraid, this case does not help the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case the final court was not dealing with the point in issue. Their Lordships were not considering whether a particular form was mandatory or directory. In fairness to learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that he has also urged that penalty proceedings could not be commenced before completing the assessment. The reading of section 17 which is the provision for imposition of penalty does not bear this construction. The section does not mandate that before taking proceedings for imposing penalty, the assessment should have been completed.