SUPREME PAPER MILLS LTD. versus ASSTT. COMMNR. COMMERCIAL TAXES CALCUTTA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 25-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 798 
SUPREME PAPER MILLS LTD. 
v. 
ASSTI. COMMNR. COMMERCIAL TAXES CALCUTIA & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2003) 
MARCH 25, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
C 
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 - s. 11 E(2) -
Show-cause notice - Issuance of - Furnishing of incorrect 
statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales by 
assessee - Show cause notice issued proposing to re-open 
. deemed assessment for the period -
Challenge to, by 
D . assessee on the ground that time period of 15 days not given 
and reasons justifying the issuance of notice not given - On 
appeal, held: Show cause notice is issued to the dealer when 
Commissioner is satisfied that the dealer has furnished 
incorrect statement of his turnover or incorrect particulars of 
E his sales in the return submitted, so as to enable the dealer 
to reply to the show cause notice - Assessee would not in any 
manner be prejudiced due to issuance of the notice -
Assessee can file an effective reply - Time given by the 
.authority for filing the reply can be further extended - Non-
F mentioning of reasons justifying issuance of notice does not 
invalidate the notice. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Legislative intent - Held: 
Language employed in a statute itself determines and 
indicates the legislative intent - If the language is clear and 
G unambiguous, it is not proper for the court to add any words 
thereto and evolve some legislative intent not found in the 
statute. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
H 
798 
SUPREME PAPER MILLS LTD. v. ASSTI. COMMNR. COMMERCIAL 799 
TAXESCALCUTIA 
instant appeal is whether the show cause notice issued 
A 
by the respondent-Revenue proposing to re-open the 
deemed assessment for the period, is illegal and defective 
as the same did not provide for a time period of 15 days 
as prescribed in the statute and did not disclose the 
materials leading to the satisfaction of the concerned 
B 
authorities justifying the issuance of such a show cause 
notice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The expression used in section 11 E(2) C 
of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is that the 
Commissioner must be satisfied on information or 
otherwise that the registered dealer has furnished 
incorrect statement of his turnover or furnished incorrect 
particulars of his sale in the return. A show cause notice 
D 
is issued to the dealer with the purpose of informing him 
that the department proposes to re-open the assessment 
because the Commissioner himself is satisfied that the 
dealer has .furnished incorrect statement of his turnover 
or incorrect particulars of his sales in the return 
E 
submitted, so as to enable the dealer to reply to the show 
cause notice as to why the said power vested on the 
Commissioner should not be exercised. [Para 14] [806-
G-H; 807-A] 
1.2. There is nothing in the language of s. 11 E(2) 
F 
which either expressly or impliedly mandates the 
recording of any reasons. Section 11 E (2) nowhere 
specifically mentions that factual basis of the ground of 
Deputy Commissioner's satisfaction on either or both the 
points mentioned in sub-section 2(a) or 2(b) of section 11 
G 
of the Act are required to be incorporated in the notice 
for re-opening of the deemed assessment and supplied 
to the dealer and that in case of failure to do so, the same 
would invalidate the notice. [Paras 15 and 18) [807-B-C; 
808-B-C] 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. Section 11 (E) is clear and explicit and there is 
no ambiguity in it. If the legislature had intended to give 
any other meaning as suggested by the counsel 
appearing for the appellant it would have made specific 
provision laying down such conditions explicitly and. in 
B clear words. The court cannot add anything into a 
statutory provision, which is plain and unambiguous. 
Language employed in a statute itself determines and 
indicates the legislative intent. If the language is clear and 
unambiguous it would not be proper for the court to add 
c any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent not 
found in the statute. [Para 16) [807-C-E] 
2.1. In the instant case, notice was issued in order to 
provide an opportunity of natural justice to the dealer. 
The notice issued giving the dealer an opportunity to 
· D show cause within a stipulated period does not in any 
manner prejudice the right of the appellant to file an 
effective reply. It was always p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.