PAWAR AND CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS almost identical questions of fact and law are involved in both these cases, we dispose of these cases by one common order for convenience. We are stating the facts of Writ Petition No. 147 of 1982 only.

(2.) THE petitioner field this writ petition on 29th January, 1982, challenging the notice (annexrue 1) issued under section 7a read with section 16 (1) (i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Sales Tax Act"), and under rule 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Sales Tax Rules" ). THE case of the petitioner is that he is a registered trader and dealer for the purpose of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. THE petitioner started his business on 13th May, 1981. THE petitioner submitted return of sale and purchase as required under section 7 of the Sale Tax Act for the period between 13th May, 1981, till 9th August, 1981. Later on the petitioner found that as there was no taxable turnover as envisaged under section 2 (s) (ii) and also as required by proviso 3, sub-clause (3) of rule 25, there was no necessity of filing any return whatsoever as required by section 7 of the Sales Tax Act. THE petitioner, in these circumstances, did not submit any return in the rest of the quarters of the accounting year 1981-82. THE Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle Churu, had issued a notice (annexrue 1) on 21st January, 1982, to the petitioner under section 7a of the Sales Tax Act to show cause why the petitioner should not be provisionally assessed. In the same notice, the petitioner was also charged for the contravention of the provisions of section 7b and section 16 (1) (i) and rule 54 (vide annexrue 1 ). THE petitioner was called upon to furnish his explanation and file his reply on 25th January, 1982. THE petitioner appeared before the Commercial Taxes Officer on this date and denied all the charges and allegations made against him under the notice. It was submitted that since there was no taxable turnover, as such there was no necessity for filing the return. THE case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition is that since all the relevant documents, books of account and registers were with the District Supply Officer, Churu, therefore,, also it was not possible for it to file a reply to the allegations and changes in detail. THE petitioner prayed for an adjournment but the Commercial Taxes Officer reserved the order for provisional assessment which he is likely to pronounce very shortly. THE petitioner has thus challenged the validity of notice (annexrue 1) dated 21st January, 1982, on various grounds. It was contended by Mr. L. M. Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no liability on the part of the petitioner to sumbit quarterly returns as there was no taxable turnover of the petitioner during the period in question. THE petitioner was also not required to submit the quarterly returns as its case was covered by rule 25 of the Sales Tax Rules. THE third proviso of clause (3) of rule 25 exempted the petitioner from filing the returns since it had no taxable turnover for that period. THE petitioner was liable to submit only annual return in form No. ST 21 not later than 60 days after the end of such year of account. By virtue of this provision, the petitioner was supposed to submit its annual return not before the start of next assessment year, i. e. , April, 1982. It is further contended that no notice for evasion or avoidance of tax could be given under the provisions of section 7a of the Sales Tax Act. Such a notice is only contemplated under the provisions of section 7b and not section 7a. THE assessing authority has not recorded any reasons to believe that the petitioner had evaded or avoided the tax. THE petitioner has not been given any opportunity to show cause before taking any action under section 7b or section 16 (1) (i ). It is further contended that a vague charge had been mentioned for violation of section 16 (1) (i) without making it clear from the notice which of the transactions of sale and purchase had been concealed by the petitioner from its books of account and registers.