The assessee being aggrieved by this order, instead of going in appeal against the order, challenging the same before the High Court praying that the sales tax officer had numberjurisdiction to make a provisional assessment, because the assessee had in fact filed a return.
From the Judgment and order dated 3rd October, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
95 and 96 of 1971.
Promod Swarup and S. Markendeya, for the Respondent.
The sales tax officer, therefore, proceeded to make a provisional assessment in respect of the portion of the assessment year companycerned, purporting to act under section 7A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
This argument appears to have found favour with the High Court which quashed the order of the sales tax officer and held that the sales tax officer companyld have made a provisional assessment to the best of his judgment only if numberreturn had been filed by the assessee.
It appears that the respondent is a partnership firm, carrying on business in the district of Moradabad.
The assessment quarters in question are two quarters of 1968.
351 and 462/69.
C. Manchanda and o. P. Rana, for the Appellants.
The appeals involve a very short point, turning upon the interpretation of rule 7A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
G. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. These appeals by the sales tax officer have companye up to this Court by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Allahabad.
By an order dated 31st December, 1968, the sales tax officer found from the turn over of the firm as revealed from the quarterly returns filed by the assessee that it disclose an assessable income.
