Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1321 - GAUHATI HIGH COURTRevision - suo motu revisional power vested in the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Zone-B - section 36 of the erstwhile Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 - Held that: - the rectification of mistakes in the original assessment order, as put in motion and concluded by the DCT, is definitely not for rectification of any arithmetical error or mistake of a factual nature within the meaning of section 37 of the Act. The proceeding under section 37 that had been initiated by the assessing officer with the notice dated May 26, 2009 did not proceed at all. It appeared to have been abandoned and no reason is found on record. The only plausible explanation would be that having regard to the contours of section 37 with its limited scope for making rectification which is confined to rectifying any arithmetical mistake or other mistake of a factual nature apparent from the record of the case, the said proceeding was cut short. Apparently, the short-coming in the assessment order dated July 5, 2007 was in respect of the percentum of deduction allowed in excess, contrary to the provisions under section 8(3)(iv)(b) of the Act. The exercise so contemplated was not certainly one falling under section 37 of the Act. The Act does not vest in the Revenue any specific power to question an order of assessment by means of an appeal. Corrective order was passed by reverting to the only possible mode available to the revisional authority under section 36(1) of the Act. Recourse to the said provision and satisfaction derived to the existence of the conditions precedent in section 36(1) justifying the impugned order dated July 10, 2011 is the critical issue for determination. The provision under section 37 of the Act is not applicable proprio vigore. Power under section 18 of the Act was not put in motion to reopen the concluded assessment. It was revised under section 36(1) of the Act, which power vested with the revisional authority. There can be no question of trenching of power in the present exercise. The present is a fit case for exercise of suo motu revisional power by the DCT under section 36(1) of the Act - revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
|