Commissioner vs Gurukul Kangri Pharmacy

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—A notice u/s 21 of the Trade Tax Act was issued. The subject-matter of challenge was the said notice. The assessee lost before the appellate authority, but succeeded before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that the assessment was completed for the relevant assessment years when, accepting the entries made in the books of account, the assessing authority was satisfied that there were book transfers. In the notice u/s 21, it was opined that those were not book transfers, but were inter-State sales attracting Central sales tax. It was not held out in the notice that the altered opinion is based on some other relevant document or material, which escaped notice at the time of assessment. It was also not held out in the notice that there has been wrong calculation due to bona fide human error or due to ignorance of correct and complete facts or mistake of fact or law or by reason of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal noticed that these were the parameters earmarked by the honourable Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Vikrant Tyres Limited Now known as J.K. Industries Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) IV, Trade Tax, The Tribunal also noticed that, before issuance of the notice in question, there was no material on record, on the basis of which, the belief required to be formed for issuance of the notice could be formed. In those circumstances, we have not been able to persuade ourselves that the Tribunal committed any error, which is to be corrected in the revision. The revision fails and the same is dismissed.