Skip to content


Gangadharan Pillai Vs. Sales Tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case Number O.P. No. 1659 of 1963
Judge
Reported in[1967]19STC289(Ker)
AppellantGangadharan Pillai
RespondentSales Tax Officer
Appellant Advocate P. Subramonian Potti and; S.A. Nagendran, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateThe Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- .....by the petitioner for the year 1963-64. the petitioner, admittedly, had filed his returns. the sales tax officer was not inclined to accept the returns and he therefore issued a notice to show cause why the turnover should not be fixed at a higher figure. to this, objection was taken by the petitioner. the sales tax officer then reduced the figure of the estimated turnover as mentioned in the notice, and fixed the turnover at rs. 71,000.2. this procedure, it seems to me, is unwarranted. rule 15 of the general sales tax rules requires that if, for any reason, the return submitted by an assessee is not acceptable to the sales tax officer, he should give notice to the assessee to produce his account books to substantiate the return submitted by him. this rule has not been complied with.....
Judgment:

P. Govindan Nair, J.

1. The order impugned in this writ application is an order provisionally fixing the sales tax payable by the petitioner for the year 1963-64. The petitioner, admittedly, had filed his returns. The Sales Tax Officer was not inclined to accept the returns and he therefore issued a notice to show cause why the turnover should not be fixed at a higher figure. To this, objection was taken by the petitioner. The Sales Tax Officer then reduced the figure of the estimated turnover as mentioned in the notice, and fixed the turnover at Rs. 71,000.

2. This procedure, it seems to me, is unwarranted. Rule 15 of the General Sales Tax Rules requires that if, for any reason, the return submitted by an assessee is not acceptable to the Sales Tax Officer, he should give notice to the assessee to produce his account books to substantiate the return submitted by him. This rule has not been complied with by the Sales Tax Officer. The procedure adopted, it seems to me, is arbitrary. I do not wish to say anything more at present as the Sales Tax Officer can rectify the mistake while passing the final order of assessment. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in C.M.P. 5378, 1/3rd of the tax fixed by the order exhibit P-4 has been paid by the petitioner. No attempt will therefore be made to collect the balance of tax due from the petitioner pending finalisation of the assessment. This writ application is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.


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