By C. B. Thakar, G. G. Goyal Advocate, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax Act — Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act — Sections 54, 54A, 55 — Assessing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, refusal to allow the dealer to cross-examine witnesses is not proper.
Facts :
The respondent was a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. An inspection was made by the Enforcement Wing Officer on which day the dealer did not produce manufacturing-cumstock register in the prescribed form. However the dealer produced all his accounts at the time of assessment, wherein he claimed certain items of sale as exempt from tax. To verify the claim with reference to bought note purchases, summons were issued to various sellers, out of which some of the summons were returned unserved with the endorsement ‘no such address’ and on the basis of this the Assessing Authority treated the bought note purchases as bogus and, therefore, the sale of such articles as taxable. The dealer came forward to produce the persons to establish its case, but the Assessing Officer refused to give opportunity for cross-examination to the dealer stating that he could not conduct a Court of law. The assessment orders were passed disallowing the bought note purchases of items exempt to tax and also levied penalty. The first Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the dealer. On a revision petition by the State;
Held :
(1) That an opportunity should have been given to the dealer and the refusal by the Department vitiated the order of assessment. When finding of facts had categorically been recorded by both the Appellate Authorities in favour of the dealer, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The question of law sought to be raised by the Department was purely question of facts.
(2) That the Assessing Authority could not simply take into consideration the report of Enforcement Wing and should have decided the matter on the merits, independently unbiased and unaffected by any other subsequent factors. The Assessing Officer had basically committed a mistake in stating that he could not conduct a Court of law. Such an attitude of the Assessing Authority in totally rejecting the contentions of the dealer without applying the basic principles of law was not legal and bad in law.
