Honble BALIA, J.–Through this writ petition, the assessee challenges the notices dated 7.12.94 under Sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for re-assessment of the assessee under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for the assessment years 88-89, 89-90, 90-91 and 91-92 which are Annx. 10 to 13. It appears that subsequently the file of the assessment was transferred to CTO, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur and fresh notices were issued under Sec. 12 for the same period on 21.08.1995 (Annx. 16 to 19) on the very same grounds by the successor Assessing Authority. It is represented by both the learned counsel that if proceedings under Annexures 10 to 13 were validly initiated, then the notices on transfer of case to another CTO issued by him will only be in continuation of existing proceedings will not be affected. So also if the notices Annexures 10 to 13 are held to be invalid, the subsequent notices merely repetition of earlier one will have no better consequence. Hence validity of notices Annexures 10 to 13 only need be examined on merit and Annexures 16 to 19 need not be examined independently.

(2). These notices were initially challenged by way of writ petition before this Court as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/95 on 11th Jan., 1995 which on constitution of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal under a special enactment stood transferred to that Tribunal where certain amendments were made in the petition. However, on abolition of the Tribunal, the petition again stood transferred to this Court and this is how the matter is before this Court.

(3). The notices have been challenged primarily on three grounds. (i) Firstly that the notices have been issued merely on the change of opinion as entire material relevant for the assessment has been disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment and it is after considering all the aspects of the matter the value of goods involved in execution of works contract by the assessee in its business of retreading tyres have been subjected to assessment by excluding the purchases made by him which were tax-paid and now notices to subject the turnover of the assess at a higher value of intermediary product during the completion of same job work amounts to mere change of opinion which cannot be a reason for re-opening of the concluded assessment. (ii) Secondly, notices have been issued to include the profit of estimated profit assumed to accrue on the transfer of inter-mediatory product of `treat rubber in the process of retreading of tyres has been sought to be included by the impugned notice which is contrary to settled propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court. (iii) Thirdly, that the notice is to include entire value of the `tread rubber in the taxable turnover of the assessee solely on the basis of its being used within the State of Rajasthan without application of the principles governing the question whether the transaction of sale or purchase or transfer of property in the goods involved in execution of works contract is sale in the course of inter-state trade and commerce inasmuch as from the assessments earlier made and from the material disclosed it was already on record that major part of the assessees business involved movement of goods from within State to outside State of Rajasthan because the major job work the petitioner takes from outside State of Rajasthan in pursuance of which the old tyres travel from outside State of Rajasthan within Rajasthan at the factory of the petitioner and on completion of job work in execution of which only the goods in question were involved, the retreated tyres moves out of State of Rajasthan. Also the purchases of goods used in the execution of works contract too have been made from outside State of Rajasthan in the course of interstate trade and commerce. (iv) Lastly, it has been contended that the issuance of notice for levying penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case disclose pre-determined mind of the assessing officer inasmuc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document