( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued under Article 227 of the Constitution by (against ?) Shri N. Roy Choudhury, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, rejecting the revisional application of the present petitioner in the matter of assessment of tax under Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of wholesale distributor of stationery and toilet goods, provisions and other allied products. The firm was registered as a 'dealer' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and Registration Certificate bearing No. C. S. I/2193a, was issued to the petitioner firm.

( 3 ) IN course of its business, the petitioner firm claims to have sold goods to various parties, many of whom were also 'registered dealers' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. During the assessment proceeding for the year 1954-55 under Section 11 of the above Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the petitioner firm submitted a return, showing the gross turn-over for the period of four quarters, ended 31st March, 1955, at Rs. 15,62,840-5-6 p. and the corresponding Trading Profit and Loss Account was also produced, showing the sales at the same figure. The Commercial Tax Officer verified the sales with the cash memos and found them to agree.

( 4 ) IN the above return, submitted by the petitioner (Assessec) firm, exemption was claimed first under Section 5 (2) (a) (i) of the aforesaid Act, that is, for sale of goods, declared tax-free under Section 6, for an amount of Rs. 84,248-1-6 ps. That part of the claim was wholly allowed by the assessing officer. The assessee firm also claimed exemption, under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii), for sales to 'registered dealers', for Rs. 14,78,594-4 as. In respect of this part of the claim of exemption, the assessing officer allowed exemption only to the extent of Rs. 21,073-3 as- but he disallowed the claim in respect of Rs. 14,57,521/ -. He found that the sales had apparently been made to 'registered dealers' but the reason for his disallowing exemption in respect of Rs. 14,57,521/- was that the said officer was, suspicious about the "genuineness and integrity" of the relative transactions, which were comparatively heavy. The purchasing dealers in those transactions are said to have left the business and the Registration Certificate of each of those dealers has since been cancelled. For these reasons, the Commercial Tax Officer found the very nature of the said transactions to be suspicious and held that they 'were fraudulently shown with a view to avoiding payment of tax. This assessment was made by an order, dated 5th December, 1956.

( 5 ) AGAINST the above order of assessment, the petitioner firm preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta (Central), and the said appellate officer held that the Commercial Tax Officer had disallowed the claim on presumption and suspicion but, in none of the cases in question, the Registration Certificate has been cancelled by any notification, as required by law, at the relevant time. In respect of eight items, however, this appellate officer found the requisite statutory declarations to be defective inasmuch as, in these eight declarations, the purpose of purchase had not been specified, as required under Rule 27 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules. The total amount of transaction in respect of these eight items comes to Rs. 5,12,430-4 as. and he (the appellate officer) disallowed the claim for exemption in respect of that amount under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii ). The order of the Commercial Tax Officer was modified accordingly by order, dated 6th May, 1957. Thereafter, however, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, by his order, dated 5th August, J957, in Revision Case No. 195 of 1957-58, disallowed the exemption of claim for a further amount of Rs. 48,178/-, representing sales to Messrs. Narayan Bastralaya, on the ground that the said amount had been left out by a c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document