ARBIND AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point arises for determination in this writ petition. The petitioners carry on business of selling stone balast (Gitti) and of undertaking construction work of buildings etc. The petitioners never submitted any returns under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") nor they were assessed to tax under the Act. According to the petitioners they used to pay sales tax to Messrs Bhanwardas Sitaramdas Mistri and that they were not liable to payment of sales tax under the Act. On October 29, 1977 the Commercial Taxes Officer, B-Circle, Bhawani Mandi, District Jha-lawar (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Authority") issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 10 (2) of the Act directing them to produce the Account Books and other records for the period from 1963-64 to 1973-74. The petitioners submitted a reply to this notice stating that the notice was bad in respect of the period beyond 8 years and as the notice in question was a composite one comprising of the period beyond 8 years and that falling within 8 years, the same was illegal and no proceedings under Section 10 could be initiated against the petitioners on the basis of such a notice. As the Assessing Authority was going to proceed with the assessment proceedings and was not prepared to drop the same on the basis of the reply of the petitioners, they have approached this court by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioners have got themselves registered as a registered dealer under the Act on November 2, 1972 and that the petitioners were liable to payment of sales tax under the Act with effect from April 1, 1963, as the sales tax is payable on the commodities supplied by the petitioners on the first point of sale. THE petitioners should have paid sales tax on the 'gitties' supplied by them to the Railways and other purchasers, but as they failed to do so, a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon the petitioners. THE respondents have also denied that the petitioners objected to the taking of proceedings on the ground that part of the period, in respect of which proceedings are sought to be taken, was beyond 8 years. THE respondents have further contended that the period of 8 years would start running from the date of knowledge and not from the close of the assessment year.