SHIVRATAN G. MOHATTA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s. Shivratan G. Mohatta, Station Road, Jodhpur, a registered partnership firm, who carries on their business in cement, iron and steel, sanitary fittings, etc., and is an assessee under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The petitioner -firm had been assessed up to the financial year 1963 -64, i.e., up to the end of 31st March, 1964, by the Commercial Taxes Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "CTO"). On an anonymous complaint, the CTO, A -Circle, Jodhpur City, issued a notice dated 2nd January, 1964 (marked exhibit 1), under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") for the alleged escaped turnover for the years 1958 -59, 1959 -60 and 1960 -61. On 29th August, 1964, another similar notice (marked exhibit 2) was issued for the escaped turnover for the years 1957 -58 to 1961 -62. Thereafter, on 15th September, 1964, a show cause notice (marked exhibit 3) was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment for the years 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 be not reopened under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner -firm submitted its reply on 5th October, 1964, giving the required explanation and asserted that no turnover for those two years had escaped assessment. The CTO, in spite of detailed reply of the petitioner, insisted to make enquiry and on several occasions called the representatives of the petitioner to attend the office. On 12th March, 1965, the then CTO came to the office of the petitioner and seized some books of account and documents. The petitioner protested in vain and on 25th November, 1965, the CTO again came to the office of the petitioner and seized some more books of account and other documents. The CTO again issued a notice (exhibit 8) under Rule 55A in the prescribed form S.T. 12A dated 13th December, 1968, for the reassessment of the escaped turnover for the period 1959 -60. This notice was received by the petitioner on 17th December, 1968. The petitioner submitted objections in reply to this notice under Rule 55A of the Rules and challenged the jurisdiction of respondent No, 2 for taking action under Section 12 of the Act for reassessment of the alleged escaped turnover on the ground that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction as the notice was issued beyond a period of 8 years. Respondent No. 2 did iiot drop the proceedings in spite of the specific and cogent objection as to his jurisdiction and fixed a date for reassessment. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds:

(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or any other writ or direction or order and for quashing the impugned notice dated 13th December, 1968 (marked exhibit 8), and further for the issue of a writ or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents to take any action under Section 12 of the Act in pursuance of the impugned notice (exhibit 8) dated 13th December, 1968. Further prayer for relief is for the issue of any other writ, direction or order, which the circumstances of the case warrant.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. As a result of the submissions made at the Bar, the following points emerge for discussion: