SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Mad) 117

N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, RAJAGOPALA IYENGAR
State of Madras – Appellant
Versus
S. Balu Chettiar and Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, V. Venkataraman, T. S. Padmanabha Aiyar, Advocates.

Judgment :-

RAJAGOPALAN, J.

The assessee was a dealer as defined by the Madras General Sales Tax Act. He did not get himself registered as a dealer in the assessment year 1951-52, under the provisions of the Act. When the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority, took steps to assess the assessee, on a provisional basis under the rules, for 1952-53, the accounts of the assessee for 1951-52 were also examined on 14th September, 1953. On 4th January, 1954, a notice was issued to the assessee to show cause why he should not be assessed on his turnover for the assessment year 1951-52. The assessee did not submit any return even after the receipt of the notice. On 16th January, 1954, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer estimated the turnover of the assessee for 1951-52 at Rs. 33, 016-1-5, on the basis of the entries in the assessee's books themselves, and assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 515-14-0. On appeal the Commercial Tax Officer confirmed the assessment. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the assessment was set aside. The Tribunal was of the view that the case of the assessee had to be dealt with under rule 17(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, and it poi











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top