Assistant Commissioner and Another Vs. Vishnu Trading Company
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 1993
Petitioner: Assistant Commissioner and Another
Respondent: Vishnu Trading Company
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 1993
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1998
Head Note:
SALES TAX
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 29 – A (2-B)- Special procedure – Sale or purchase of goods under transport – Tax payable, but suspected to be not paid or defaulted in payment – No order or noting by concerned sales tax authorities in this regard. Held that in absence of such an order, only normal procedure was to be adopted and not by invok-ing sec 29 – A (2-B).
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Section 29 – A (2-B)- Special procedure – Sale or purchase of goods under transport – Tax payable, but suspected to be not paid or defaulted in payment – No order or noting by concerned sales tax authorities in this regard. Held that in absence of such an order, only normal procedure was to be adopted and not by invok-ing sec 29 – A (2-B).
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel and perused the order under challenge.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon Section 29-A(2-B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which permits a special procedure to be adopted in the case of an assessee if the Sales Tax Officer has reason to believe that the tax payable for the sale or purchase of the goods under transport is not paid or the dealer whose goods have been transported has not paid any tax in accordance with the procedure prescribed or had at any time defaulted in payment of any tax. In such a situa-tion the Sales Tax Officer is empowered to allow the transport of goods only after realising the tax due on the turnover of the goods transported. It appears in the instant cases that the normal procedure in respect of the transport of goods was denied to the respondent-assessee and he approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking a direction that the normal proce-dure should be followed and he should be given blank delivery notes in book form. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Sales Tax authorities who opposed the writ petition. It does not appear that any order had been passed by the Sales Tax authori-ties invoking Section 29-A(2-B) or recording that they had reason to believe that the conditions of that sub-section were satisfied. In the absence of such an order, or even a noting, the Sales Tax authorities were not entitled to adopt a procedure other than the normal procedure in respect of the respondent-assessee. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
1. We have heard learned counsel and perused the order under challenge.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon Section 29-A(2-B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which permits a special procedure to be adopted in the case of an assessee if the Sales Tax Officer has reason to believe that the tax payable for the sale or purchase of the goods under transport is not paid or the dealer whose goods have been transported has not paid any tax in accordance with the procedure prescribed or had at any time defaulted in payment of any tax. In such a situa-tion the Sales Tax Officer is empowered to allow the transport of goods only after realising the tax due on the turnover of the goods transported. It appears in the instant cases that the normal procedure in respect of the transport of goods was denied to the respondent-assessee and he approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking a direction that the normal proce-dure should be followed and he should be given blank delivery notes in book form. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Sales Tax authorities who opposed the writ petition. It does not appear that any order had been passed by the Sales Tax authori-ties invoking Section 29-A(2-B) or recording that they had reason to believe that the conditions of that sub-section were satisfied. In the absence of such an order, or even a noting, the Sales Tax authorities were not entitled to adopt a procedure other than the normal procedure in respect of the respondent-assessee. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
