CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 04 GAU CK 0005

Assam Drug Dealers Association and Another vs State of Assam and Others

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 3 April 2003 · Citation: (2006) 143 STC 84

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G. Agarwal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No. 94 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 356 words

P.G. Agarwal, J.—This is an application filed by the Assam Drug Dealers Association for review of the order dated September 13, 2002 passed in W.P.(c) No. 2877 of 2000 [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Assam [2002] 128 STC 537 (Gau)] and other similar matters. In the above batch of writ petitions, it was held that the audit made by the concerned auditor under the Income Tax Act, if any, shall be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 10A of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the audit report under rule 19A.

2.

Dr. Saraf has submitted that the petitioners have no grievance and no appeal has been filed by the either parties against the said order. However, in the impugned judgment, it was further provided that a report in forms XXXI and XXXI-A as required under Rule 19A be furnished along with the said report. It is, therefore, submitted that it needs to be clarified. In view of finding that the audit report under the Income Tax Act shall be deemed to be an audit report under the General Sales Tax Act, the certificate in forms XXXI and XXXI-A will not be required to be given by the accountant/auditor and required information in form XXXI-A may be allowed to be given by the dealer. I find that the impugned judgment was passed reading down Section 10A , so that it does not burden the dealers for undergoing audit of their accounts twice, once for the purpose of Income Tax and again for the purpose of General Sales Tax Act.

3.

In view of the above decision, it is provided that the report in form XXXI-A shall be furnished by the dealer. So far form XXXI is concerned the audit report/certificate given by accountant shall be suffice. The concerned Sales Tax Department may take steps for modification of the form.

4.

The review petition stands allowed to be extent as stated above.

5.

I have heard Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.K. Goswami learned senior counsel for the intervener, respondent No. 3 and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel.