Gauri Shanker alias Munshi vs Commissioner of Sales Tax

B.N. Sapru, J.—This revision has been filed by the assessee and pertains to the assessment year 1970-71.

The assessee was assessed to tax by an assessment order dated 19th March, 1975. He filed an appeal. The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority. A fresh assessment order was made on 11th August, 1978. The assessee preferred an appeal. Under the law, he was required to make a statutory deposit of 20 per cent. He did not make the deposit and applied for waiver. On applications filed by the assessee, the time was extended on many occasions. Ultimately, the last application for extension of time was made by the assessee on 9th February, 1979. According to the assessee, no order on this application was made and the assessee''s memorandum of appeal was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by an order dated 29th February, 1979, on the ground that statutory deposit had not been made. The assessee appealed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was upheld by the Tribunal.

Aggrieved, the assessee has come in revision.

The learned counsel for the assessee has urged that the assessee had made a deposit of Rs. 1,000 on 28th January, 1975 and as such he had deposited 20 per cent of the tax. No mention of this deposit is made in the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) or in the order of the Tribunal. Even in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, it is not stated that the appeal could not have been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) on the ground that the tax had not been deposited and, in fact, the tax had been so deposited. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. The fact that no order was passed on the application of the assessee dated 9th February, 1979, will also not help the assessee. It was the duty of the assessee to find out what order had been passed. The assessee could not have presumed that merely because he had made an application for extension of time, the time would be given. When the appeal was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) the deposit of 20 per cent not having been made, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was justified in rejecting the appeal. The order of the Tribunal also did not suffer from any error.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.