Skip to content


Sunderlal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Two ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Petition No. 277 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1983]54STC325(MP)
AppellantSunderlal
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax and Two ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.L. Agrawal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.R. Joshi, Government Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - 3 by order dated 27th february, 1979, made a best judgment assessment and imposed sales tax including penalty at rs......no. 3 by submitting an application under section 39(1)(b) of the act which was dismissed by the deputy commissioner of sales tax in exercise of his delegated powers of the commissioner under section 39 of the act. in view of this, the revision submitted by the petitioner was not maintainable and therefore, was rightly dismissed by respondent no. 1. it was also denied that the order dismissing the revision was passed by the assistant commissioner of sales tax. it was averred that the order was passed by the commissioner of sales tax and was only communicated to the petitioner by the assistant commissioner of sales tax. the respondents prayed that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that the petition should be dismissed.4. having heard the learned counsel for the parties.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 15th April, 1982 and 27th February, 1979, respectively passed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows : The petitioner was a partner in the firm, M/s. Sunderlal Baijanth, which carried on business of selling foreign type Indian Liquor at Sanawad. According to the petitioner the licence issued by the excise department to the firm expired on 31st July, 1974 and the firm transacted business in that year up to the said date only. According to the petitioner, information of the same was also given by the firm to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Khargone, respondent No. 3. The firm filed its return of sales tax for the aforesaid period which was not accepted by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 by order dated 27th February, 1979, made a best judgment assessment and imposed sales tax including penalty at Rs. 2,290. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the order of respondent No. 3 when he received a recovery notice. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for quashing the order annexure A passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of the revisional powers of respondent No. 1. This application was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 8th April, 1982, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the order annexure F passed by respondent No. 1 be quashed because it is vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. In the return, it is stated that one Ishwarlal, another partner of the petitioner's firm, assailed the order of assessment passed by respondent No. 3 by submitting an application under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in exercise of his delegated powers of the Commissioner under Section 39 of the Act. In view of this, the revision submitted by the petitioner was not maintainable and therefore, was rightly dismissed by respondent No. 1. It was also denied that the order dismissing the revision was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It was averred that the order was passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and was only communicated to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondents prayed that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that the petition should be dismissed.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this petition is without any substance and must be dismissed.

5. According to the petitioner himself, Ishwarlal was a working partner and looking after the business of the firm. Ishwarlal challenged the assessment order passed by respondent No. 3 by submitting a revision petition under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act. That revision was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the delegated powers of the Commissioner under Section 39 of the Act. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the revision became final. In the circumstances, a second revision at the instance of another partner of the firm was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief in this petition. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner in the petition did not disclose the fact that Ishwarlal filed a revision against the order passed by respondent No. 3 which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. This was a material fact which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

6. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //