IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No. 36 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 37 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 38 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 39 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 40 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 41 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 42 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent 2 Commercial Tax Revision No. 43 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 44 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 45 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 46 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 47 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 48 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 49 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent 3 Commercial Tax Revision No. 50 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 51 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 52 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Commercial Tax Revision No. 53 of 2011 M/s Copper Chimney Catering Company ………. Revisionist Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax ………. Respondent Mr. Surendra Kumar Posti, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State / respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) The controversy raised in all these Revision Applications is identical, hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these Revision Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A provisional assessment has been made. The reason for provisional assessment was non-submission of periodical returns and non- 4 deposit of tax, which were required to be submitted and deposited, as the case may be. The reason for the provisional assessment was informations received from the customers of the revisionist of the quantum of purchases of food they made from the revisionist. Before the provisional assessment was made, a notice was served upon the revisionist, which was not responded to. In the circumstances, there is hardly any scope of interference with the provisional assessment order, which has been upheld by the tribunal, after having had set aside the order of the first appellate authority. 3. However, in terms of the provisions of the Act, provisional assessment merges with the final assessment and, accordingly, the liability to pay tax is finally settled when the final assessment is made. Then again, from the informations received, it appears that the monthly sale of the revisionist, as reported by its customers, aggregated to about ` 7 lacs, whereas the provisional assessment has been made at ` 15 lacs. Before the Assessing Officer, it was not held out by the revisionist that his customers are only those, which have been mentioned in the provisional assessment order and that he has no other customer apart from them. In the circumstances, there was just reason to proceed at the time of provisional assessment that the revisionist may have more customers than those four mentioned in the provisional assessment order and, accordingly, it was permissible for the Assessing Authority, on the principle of ‘best judgment’, to come to a reasonable conclusion that the turnover of the revisionist is around ` 15 lacs a month. Before the appellate authority and, then, before the tribunal and also before us, it appears to be the contention of the revisionist that he does not have any other customer than those mentioned in the provisional assessment order. This aspect of the matter is required to be gone in at the time of final assessment. 4. We, accordingly, dispose of these Revision Applications by directing the revisionist to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee, in favour of the Assessing Officer, for a sum of ` 20 lacs by 9th June, 2011, 5 with a request to the Assessing Officer to complete final assessment in accordance with law as quickly as possible, but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him. Until 9th June, 2011, Tehsildar is unconditionally restrained from executing the order of provisional assessment. In the event, by 9th June, 2011, bank guarantee, as above, is furnished, then the Tehsildar will stay his hands permanently from executing the provisional assessment order. 5. In the event, upon final assessment, it transpires that the tax liability of the revisionist, including interest and other liabilities as are leviable in law, exceeds ` 20 lacs, Assessing Officer shall be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee. In the event, it transpires that such liability is less than ` 10 lacs, Assessing Officer shall recover the same in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act from the revisionist and, at the same time, return the bank guarantee to the revisionist. In the event, it transpires that the liability is more than ` 10 lacs, Assessing Officer shall be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee, keep the amount of tax leviable and treat the same to have been paid by the revisionist and return the rest of the amount to the revisionist forthwith. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 25.05.2011 25.05.2011 G