Back
1997 Supreme(Gau) 138
D.N. Chowdhury, J.
RAJENDRA NAHATA
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES, UNIT-C, CIRCLE-6 AND OTHERS.
Civil Rule No. 1474 of 1994
Decided On: Decided On : 07-08-1997
Dr. A. K. Saraf, S. Mitra, K. K. Gupta and N. R. Purohit, for the petitioner.
H. N. Sarma, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondents.
The rules of natural justice are not absolute and rigid and that the requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
ASSAM GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1993 - SECTION 17(1) AND 17(5) - ASSESSMENT - SUMMARY ASSESSMENT - VALIDITY - PETITIONER FAILED TO SUBMIT RETURN AND PAY TAX DESPITE NOTICES - ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT - HELD: ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a lottery ticket dealer, challenged the summary assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 17(5) read with section 17(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, for the period July and August 1993. The petitioner contended that he had submitted his return on November 6, 1993, and therefore the assessing officer erred in making the summary assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to submit his return and pay the tax despite several notices issued by the assessing officer. The Court also noted that the assessing officer had given the petitioner ample opportunity to comply with the notices and had even extended the time for filing the return. However, the petitioner failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided to him.
Issues: Whether the assessing officer was justified in making the summary assessment under section 17(5) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the assessing officer had acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the rules of natural justice are not absolute and rigid and that the requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the sales tax authorities were not bound by the strict technicalities of the Evidence Act and that the Act or the Rules did not contemplate the assessing authority to do more than what was done in this case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.
D. N. CHOWDHURY, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of assessment dated November 10, 1993 under section 17(1) read with section 17(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 for the period July and August, 1993, vide annexure X to the writ petition.
2. Sequel to the aforesaid assessment respondent No. 3 [the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery) and Bakijai Officer, Guwahati] issued notice No. 1960-61 dated January 20, 1994 directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 1,27,20,892 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and notice No. 2107 dated February 9, 1994 issued by the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to appear personally on February 23, 1994, for default of payment of the aforesaid sum. The said two notices are also assailed in this proceeding.
3. The petitioner averred that he at the relevant time was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of lottery tickets as the sole proprietor in the name and style of M/s. Vikash Agency having place of business at Paltanbazar, Guwahati, in the district of Kamrup. The petitioner also dealt in purchase and sale of various daily lotteries organised and run by the State of Assam under different names. It was also averred that sale of lottery tickets was made exigible to tax under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 with effect from July 1, 1993.
4. The Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, Unit-C, by letter dated August 2, 1993 communicated the petitioner about the information that was available before him about the sale of tickets of Rs. 2,65,21,922 with effect from July 1, 1993 to July 31, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes also informed that the sale of lottery tickets attracts the liability under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 with effect from July 1, 1993 at the rate of 10 per cent as per item No. 94 (of Schedule II) of the Act and he was to apply for registration. By the said letter it was also made known to the petitioner about the statutory requirement of registration by July 31, 1993. The petitioner was accordingly advised to apply for registration and get himself registered immediately. He was also to deposit the taxes due for the month of July 1993 immediately. The petitioner accordingly applied for the registration and a certificate of registration in form III was issued in his favour making him liable to pay tax with effect from July 1, 1993. The Superintendent of Taxes issued a notice dated September 28, 1993, asking the petitioner to show cause in writing and to appear personally before the said officer on October 5, 1993 as to why the penalty should not be imposed under the Act for his failure to submit the return with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 inspite of issue of reminder. By notice No. Gau(C)/C-6/10819(A) date October 1, 1993 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be assessed summarily to the best of his judgment as per the provisions of the Act in addition to penalty for his failure to submit returns with full payment for the months of July and August, 1993 in spite of notice issued on him. The Superintendent of Taxes by his notice dated October 8, 1993 advised the petitioner once again to submit the return within October 14, 1993 and the said notice is quoted below :
"Sub : Notice against summary assessment and imposition of penalty.
Whereas as per provision of the AGST Act, 1993 you are to submit return with admitted taxes for the months of July, 1993 and August, 1993 and the due date for submission of returns for the aforesaid month are two last date of the following month as contemplated under section 16 of the AGST Act, 1993 read with rule 25. But in spite of your liability and inspite of sufficient time allowed vide the office
Notice No. 10924(A) dated July 1, 1993,
do No. 10687(A) dated September 29, 1993,
do No. 101819(A) dated October 1, 1993,
you have failed to submit the return.
Whereas you have assured this office th
