Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
State Of Orissa vs Durgadutta Moda on 10 April, 1973 cites

P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar And Sons, ... vs Joint Commercial Tax Officer Iii, ... on 22 August, 1966

It is, therefore, clear that once the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed, he has to call for a return from the dealer under Section 11(1) of the Act and is required to proceed with the assessment in the manner laid down under Sub-section (5) of that section of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 authorises assessment to the best of Judgment. Therefore, under Section 12(8) there can be an assessment by best of assessing officer's Judgment. Mr. Mohanty relied with great emphasis on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. S. Subramaniam Chettiar & Sons v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer III, Dindigul [1966] 18 S.T.C. 357. Referring to Section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it was held that Sub-section (1) was concerned with two kinds of escapements: (1) turnover escaping assessment; and (2) turnover being assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable. In the second category of cases, there was no question of assessment according to best Judgment, but in dealing with the first category, the question arose whether the assessing authority was confined to the turnover actually proved by evidence to have escaped assessment or could go beyond and determine the quantum of turnover by best Judgment. Referring to Section 16 of the Act, the court held that the Sub-section had not conferred the power of assessment by best Judgment and, therefore, in reassessing the escaped turnover, the assessing officer was not entitled to resort to the method of best Judgment assessment. We do not think, reliance can be placed on this decision to interpret the power of the assessing officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 12 of the Orissa Act. In the Orissa Act provision has been made conferring power under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 on the assessing officer. Therefore, by express legislation the assessing officer has been authorised to complete reassessment on the basis of escapement of turnover by following the method of assessment according to best Judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

H.M. Esufali, H.M. Abdulali Siyagunj vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore on 2 December, 1968

Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagat Ram Jai Narain v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 287 and Kashi Jewellers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 291, another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1 and a decision of the Patna High Court in Mittal & Company v. State of Bihar [1969] 24 S.T.C. 418, which have taken the view that the Sales Tax Officer in reassessing the turnover is entitled to make a best Judgment assessment, in our view, lay down the correct law. Once the accounts are discarded the foundation of the original assessment made on the footing of the accounts collapses and the turnover made on that basis loses its validity. The assessing officer becomes entitled to cover the entire range of the turnover and may make a best Judgment assessment. It is true, the extent of the escapement has got to be kept in view and, therefore, it requires to be indicated or ascertained. Our answer to the first question, therefore, shall be that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was the duty of the department to fix the actual amount of escapement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

Their Lordships quoted with approval the dicta laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola [1937] 5 I.T.R. 170 (P.C.), by their own court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [1954] 26 I.T.R 775 (S.C.), by the Lahore High Court in Ganga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1937] 5 I.T.R. 464 and in Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1944] 12 I.T.R. 393.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Bhagat Ram Jai Narain vs Commissioner, Sales Tax on 16 January, 1969

Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagat Ram Jai Narain v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 287 and Kashi Jewellers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 291, another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1 and a decision of the Patna High Court in Mittal & Company v. State of Bihar [1969] 24 S.T.C. 418, which have taken the view that the Sales Tax Officer in reassessing the turnover is entitled to make a best Judgment assessment, in our view, lay down the correct law. Once the accounts are discarded the foundation of the original assessment made on the footing of the accounts collapses and the turnover made on that basis loses its validity. The assessing officer becomes entitled to cover the entire range of the turnover and may make a best Judgment assessment. It is true, the extent of the escapement has got to be kept in view and, therefore, it requires to be indicated or ascertained. Our answer to the first question, therefore, shall be that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was the duty of the department to fix the actual amount of escapement.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mittal And Company vs State Of Bihar on 30 October, 1968

Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagat Ram Jai Narain v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 287 and Kashi Jewellers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1969] 24 S.T.C. 291, another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1969] 24 S.T.C. 1 and a decision of the Patna High Court in Mittal & Company v. State of Bihar [1969] 24 S.T.C. 418, which have taken the view that the Sales Tax Officer in reassessing the turnover is entitled to make a best Judgment assessment, in our view, lay down the correct law. Once the accounts are discarded the foundation of the original assessment made on the footing of the accounts collapses and the turnover made on that basis loses its validity. The assessing officer becomes entitled to cover the entire range of the turnover and may make a best Judgment assessment. It is true, the extent of the escapement has got to be kept in view and, therefore, it requires to be indicated or ascertained. Our answer to the first question, therefore, shall be that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was the duty of the department to fix the actual amount of escapement.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bherodhan Jethmal (Private) Ltd. vs State Of Orissa on 10 March, 1970

Mr. Mohanty relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Bherodhan Jethmal (Private) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 26 S.T.C. 536. We must say that no support is available to the assessee from this decision. As the facts show, this court came to hold that the duplicate book which was the genuine account was before the assessing authority and as such over and above what appeared from the genuine account, there should be no further addition. There is no material in the present case on the basis whereof such a finding can be given.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1