Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 380 (DEL)

MURARI LAL PANNA LAL v. SALES TAX OFFICER

2001-09-12

ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K.JAIN

body2001
JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the revisional authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax disposing of two revision petitions, one each under section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short "the Act") and section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"). Dispute relates to assessment year 1994-95. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and therefore a brief narration of facts will suffice. Petitioner, a dealer under the Act, was assessed to extra demands of Rs. 3,03,25,556 and Rs. 12,72,685 respectively under the Act and the Central Act. The total levy under the Act included interest of Rs. 98,35,350. Major portion of the demand was raised for non-production of necessary declaration forms, i.e., ST-30 forms under the Act and C forms under the Central Act to substantiate claim of sales to registered dealers. The assessment in each case was completed ex-parte on December 31, 1997 for non-appearance on the date fixed, i.e., December 29, 1997. Assessee took the stand that the assessments were completed without service of notice for the last date of hearing, i.e., December 29, 1997. The revisional authority on perusal of records came to hold that the notice could not be said to have been served. For coming to such a conclusion, reference was made to rule 46(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (in short "the Rules"). It was noted that since one of the modes of service prescribed was by post, and that there shall be deemed service only if it is properly addressed and posted by registered post. In the instant case, notice was not sent by registered post, and instead the notice directing appearance for December 29, 1997 was sent under certificate of posting though earlier notices were sent by registered post on certain occasions. After having held that notice could not be deemed to have been served, the matter was examined on the merits. So far as the forms which were claimed to be available with the petitioner and which were in fact sought to be produced, it was held that production of forms for the first time before the revisional authority cannot be permitted, as the assessee was required to show that it was prevented from furnishing the same before the assessing officer. So far as the forms which were claimed to be available with the petitioner and which were in fact sought to be produced, it was held that production of forms for the first time before the revisional authority cannot be permitted, as the assessee was required to show that it was prevented from furnishing the same before the assessing officer. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for assessee submitted that this is a case where there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and the revisional authority having observed that there was no proof of service of notice so far as the last date of appearance is concerned should not have further held that assessment has been rightly done. In any event, declaration forms, which were produced should not have been kept out of consideration. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that even if it is accepted that there was no service of notice for December 29, 1997, the revisional authority was not bound to accept the declaration forms for consideration. To justify acceptability of the forms, the assessee was required to show sufficient cause as to why the declaration forms were not produced before the assessing officer. He contended with reference to certain observations made by the authority while dealing with the application for stay filed by the petitioner that even before the authority dealing with stay application declaration forms were not produced. We find that a factual finding has been recorded by the revisional authority about non-service of notice so far as the last date of hearing December 29, 1997 is concerned. Therefore, the further observation of the revisional authority about the assessee having failed to produce the forms does not stand to reason. If there was no notice for the last date of hearing, the question of assessee not producing the forms on the date fixed does not arise. In any event, if the revisional authority thought it proper to examine the case on the merits after having held that there was no proper service, the least that could be done was to examine the forms and decide on their acceptability. As noted above, the question that the assessee was granted sufficient opportunity before completion of assessment does not arise. As noted above, the question that the assessee was granted sufficient opportunity before completion of assessment does not arise. It is open to the assessee to produce declaration forms in support of its claim even on the last date of hearing. No exception can be taken to his non-production of forms before the last date. Only when forms are not produced even on the last date to which the proceedings are posted, and are subsequently produced at appellate/revisional stage, the assessee would be required to show justifiable reason as to why they were not produced at assessment stage. In the aforesaid background, we quash the order passed by the revisional authority and remit the matter back to the assessing officer to examine the matter afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the petitioner appear before the assessing officer on October 3, 2001, with relevant documents without further notice, so that they can be examined by the assessing officer and fresh decision can be taken in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if assessee does not appear on the aforesaid date, it shall be open to the assessing officer to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Writ petition disposed of.