Delhi High Court
Bansi Dhar Gulzari Mal vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, New ... on 22 February, 1991
Author: B N Kirpal
Bench: B Kirpal, S Duggal
JUDGMENT
B. N. Kirpal, J.
1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to this Court the following question of law :
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in holding that the validity of the notices of demand cannot be challenged because the assessments for the years in respect of which the notices of demand had been issued, had attained finality ?"
2. In respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 the sales tax assessments were completed and tax levied. Thereafter appeals and revisions were filed in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1967-68. Orders were passed by the Financial Commissioner on February 11, 1971 and December 6, 1972, respectively. In respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 the Financial Commissioner passed a common order dated December 21, 1972. In respect of the assessment years 1966-67 no revision petition was filed. It is clear, therefore, that the assessment in respect of the aforesaid orders stood concluded with the passing of the aforesaid orders.
3. Notices of demand were issued for the recovery of the tax due. In respect of assessment year 1965-66 notice of demand was served on January 1, 1969; in respect of assessment year 1966-67 notice of demand was served on December 19, 1969; in respect of assessment year 1967-68 notice of demand was served on August 17, 1971; in respect of assessment year 1968-69 notice of demand was served on October 11, 1971 and in respect of assessment year 1969-70 notice of demand was served on October 13, 1971.
4. The dealer filed an application on January 22, 1973, before the Sales Tax Ofricer, inter alia, contending that recovery certificates which had been issued for the recovery of the outstanding demands should be withdrawn. The contention of the dealer was that the notice of demand of payment were illegal as they did not contain the exact date of payment of the demand.
5. Vide order dated January 25, 1973, the Sales Tax Officer dismissed the said application because the dealer had already filed revisions before the higher authorities and the Sales Tax Officer felt that he could not supersede those orders.
6. Appeals were filed to the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, but they were dismissed on February 3, 1973, for the same reason. The Assistant Commissioner further held that the principles of res judicata were applied. The Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision petition as in his opinion the notices of demand were not of vital significance and they were clerical formality intimating the amount due for recovery.
7. Thereafter the aforesaid question has been referred to this Court.
8. In our opinion the contentions which had been raised by the dealer were completely unfounded. Once the assessments had been made and appeals and revisions disposed of, the question of re-agitating the liability to tax by seeking to impugn the notices of demand which are sent cannot possibly arise. The liability to tax is determined by the order of assessments which had been passed in accordance with the Act. The notice of demand merely informs the dealer as to the quantum of tax to be paid by a particular date. In any case, the notices have been placed on the record before us. In each one of these notices it is stated that the dealer was directed to pay the amount mentioned therein "within 31 days of the receipt of the order". The only contention which was raised was that the notices did not give the exact date for making the payment. This is not correct because when the notices themselves specified that the payment had to be made within 31 days of the service of the notice then the date for payment stood determined with the service of the notice of the demand. It was merely an arithmetical calculation as to what would be the last date for payment. In any case the assessments which are made are final unless and until they are varied by the appellate or revisional authorities. Once orders are passed in appeal or revision and no further steps are taken for setting aside of those orders then the notice of demand which are issued cannot be challenged on merits. In the present case the notice of demand was sought to be challenged, as we have already observed, only on the ground that the last date for making the payment had not been specified. The sales tax authorities were justified in deciding against the dealer and for the aforesaid reason the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the dealer. No costs.
9. Reference answered in the affirmative.
