CHANDMAL GANGABISHAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of D. B. Sales Tax Case No. 35 of 1980 and Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1980 which relate to the period : October 19, 1971 to November 4, 1972 and D. B. Sales Tax Case No. 34 of 1980 and D. B. Sales Tax Reference No. 14 of 1980, relating to the period : November 5, 1972 to October 25, 1973.

(2.) WE may briefly notice the facts, which have led to D. B. Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1980. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) ("a. C. T. O. "), Bikaner seized books of accounts of the dealer-assessee, M/s. Chandmal Gangabishan, which carries on the business of "bhujiya" and "papad". He found the books of accounts incomplete in respect of the purchase of raw materials and quantities of finished products manufactured. It was also detected that certain entries in the books maintained by Shri Hari Ram Chakkiwala with regard to the business of the dealer-assessee did not find place in his (dealer-assessee's) books of accounts. The A. C. T. O. (Anti-Evasion), thus, proceeded to make his best judgment assessment on the basis of the available material, namely, the books of of accounts maintained by the dealer-assessee and Shri Hari Ram Chakkiwala and the facts regarding which the admission was made by the dealer-assessee. The periods involved, as stated above are October 19, 1971 to November 4, 1972; and November 5, 1972 to October 25, 1973. The best judgment assessment made by the A. C. T. O. on February 6, 1972 was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, by his order dated June 12, 1974. Two separate revisions were filed before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ("the Board" herein) regarding the aforesaid two periods. On behalf of the dealer-assessee, the following three contentions were raised before the Board : (1) that the A. C. T. O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner had no jurisdiction over the dealer-assessee, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur. (2) that no sufficient opportunity was afforded to the dealer-assessee to present is case and rebut the basis on which the A. C. T. O. had made his best judgment assessment; and (3) that the best judgment assessment made by the A. C. T. O. was wrong and baseless.

(3.) IT is clear from the aforesaid notification that the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Jodhpur had jurisdiction over the manufacturers whose turnover in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1970-71 was not less than five lacs. This is not disputed by Mr. K. C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the Sales Tax Department. IT may be stated that the dealer-assessee's place of business is at Bikaner and as the turnover in the previous year 1970-71 was more than five lacs, the jurisdiction over it was of the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Jodhpur. An exception has been provided to clause (i) that the C. T. O. , Special Circle shall only exercise jurisdiction, if the case of the dealer-assessee does not fall within the four corners of clause (ii ). Clause (ii) provides an exception to the exercise of jurisdiction by the C. T. O. , Special Circle. The C. T. O. (Anti-Evasion), Ganganagar had jurisdiction over the dealers whose place of business was in Bikaner. In case there was an evasion of tax or concealment of liability to tax, which has been detected by him [c. T. O. (Anti-Evasion), Ganganagar], his jurisdiction extended to the dealers whose place was Bikaner. IT may be recalled that he argument raised by the learned counsel for the dealer-assessee is that as the evasion of tax or concealment of liability to tax was not detected by the C. T. O. , (Anti-Evasion) Circle, Ganganagar, the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Jodhpur could only exercise jurisdiction over it, and as this was not done, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner could not acquire jurisdiction even if there was evasion of tax or concealment of liability to tax so far as the dealer-assessee was concerned, having been detected by him.