Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 543 (PAT)

Medichem Traders v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-15

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. All the three writ petitions filed by the same petitioner relate to three different assessment periods. C.W.J.C. No. 1006 of 2007 appertains to assessment period 1992-93, C.W.J.C No. 1170 of 2007 to assessment period 1993-94 and C.W.J.C. No. 2063 of 2007 to assessment period 1994-95. It appears that the assessing authority (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna West Circle. Patna) passed assessment orders in regard to six assessment periods from 1992-93 to 1997-98 on the same date. For the three later periods (1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98) he accepted the gross turnover submitted by the petitioner. But for the earlier three assessment periods (to which the three writ petitions relate) he did not accept the gross turnover submitted by the petitioner and in purported best judgment determined the gross turnover for each of the three assessment periods at Rs. 2 crores. The petitioner seeks to challenge the assessment orders for these three years. 2. It may be stated here that the petitioner deals in veterinary drugs and medicines. The proprietor of the firm is one of the accused in the Fodder Scam cases. He has been convicted by the trial court and is currently under going imprisonment. 3. For the assessment period 1992-93. a G.T.O. of Rs. 40,060.31 was shown in the return submitted by the petitioner. For the assessment periods 1993-94 and 1994-95 the returns submitted by the petitioner showed gross turnover of Rs. 7,03,872.04 and Rs. 9.46,857.38 respectively. The Assessing Officer determined the gross turnover for the three assessment periods at Rs. 2 crores each. It may be noted here that for the three later assessment periods 1995-96 to 1997-98 too the Assessing Officer fixed the gross turnover at Rs. 2 crore each, far in excess of the gross turnover shown in the returns filed by the petitioner. 4. Against the assessment orders passed earlier for the six assessment periods the petitioner preferred revisions before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The revisions were based on the plea that in connection with the Fodder Scam cases the petitioners books of accounts were seized by the C.B.I. and it was, therefore, unable to produce its books of accounts in support of the returns filed by it. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes accepted the petitioners plea and allowed the revisions by a common order dated 6.2.2006. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes accepted the petitioners plea and allowed the revisions by a common order dated 6.2.2006. He remitted the assessment proceedings for the six assessment periods before the Assessing Authority giving the petitioner a months time to produce the books of account before him by obtaining certified copies from the criminal court where the seized documents might have been filed. 5. Apparently the petitioner was able to produce the books of account for the three assessment periods 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the Assessing Officer accepted the gross turnover as shown in its return for those assessment periods. Thus the matter with regard to those assessment periods concluded at that stage. 6. The petitioner was unable to produce the books of account for the assessment periods in question (1992-93 to 1994-95). The Assessing Officer, therefore, reiterated the earlier figure of Rs. 2 crores fixed by him on the basis of the best judgment assessment for the three periods in question. 7. In the orders passed by the Assessing Officer there is absolutely no reason assigned for fixing the gross turnover for the three years at Rs. 2 crores each. It seems to be just a figure taken out of the head. In fact in the assessment orders for the three years the same sentence is repeated without any difference determining Rs. 2 crores as the gross turnover for each of the three years in question. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer determined the gross turnover arbitrarily because the petitioner was not able to produce the books of account for the three years in question. It was pointed out that for the later three years for which the petitioner was able to produce the books of account the Assessing Officer accepted the gross turnover shown in the petitioners returns and revised the earlier gross turnover of Rs. 2 crores fixed by him on best judgment assessment. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would submit the books of account for the three periods before the Assessing Officer within one month from today. 9. 2 crores fixed by him on best judgment assessment. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would submit the books of account for the three periods before the Assessing Officer within one month from today. 9. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the statement made before the court that the books of account for the three years in question will be produced before the Assessing Authority within one month from today, we consider it just and proper that the assessment for the three years should be made afresh after giving the petitioner a further opportunity to produce its books of account in support of the returns filed by it. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders dated 5.5.2006 and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Patna West Circle, Patna. The petitioner is directed to appear before him alongwith a copy of this order within two weeks from today. The Assistant Commissioner shall give the petitioner opportunity to produce its books of account for the assessment periods 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 by 16.4.2007 and shall then pass orders for those years by April 30, 2007 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.