TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes, when on receipt of the aforesaid report dated December 27, 1960, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, he gave a notice to the former and furnished him with a full copy of the report. It cannot, therefore, be maintained with any show of force that, in admitting and relying on the aforesaid report dated December 27, 1960, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, committed any illegality or breach of any statutory provision or rule or transgressed the limits of his jurisdiction. - C.A. Nos. 669, 670 of 1971, S.T.R. No. 395 of 1965 - - - Dated:- 23-4-1976 - GUPTA A.C. AND JASWANT SINGH JJ. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (H.S. Parihar and I.N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. Mrs. Leila Seth, M/s. Sukumar Basu and G.S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for the respondent in C.A. No. 670 of 1971. L.N. Sinha, Solicitor-General (M/s. Sukumar Basu and G.S. Chatterjee, Advocates, with him), for the respondent in C.A. No. 669 of 1971. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. -These two Appeals Nos. 669 and 670 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st October, 1960, at 4 p.m. positively." In response to the notice, the appellant appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer, who after hearing the former and examining the cash memos and other materials submitted a report of the investigation made by him to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Section, observing, inter alia, that two original cash memos issued by the appellant bearing serial No. 30727-26 dated January 24, for Rs. 69.50 in respect of sale of Banarsi saree and No. 31310-37 dated December 25, 1966, for Rs. 62.20 in respect of sale of ready-made garments were not properly recorded in the appellant's books of account and records and that on reference to the appellant's books of account and cash memos, it had been found that cash memo No. 30727-26 was issued in respect of mill-made cloth for Rs. 11.75 on August 18, 1964, and not in respect of Banarsi saree for Rs. 69.50 on January 24, and cash memo No. 31310-37 was issued in respect of sale of mill-made cloth for Rs. 3.47 and not in respect of sale of ready-made garments for Rs. 62.20 on December 25, 1966. He also observed in his report that in cash memo No. 31310-37, the date appeared to have been tampered with by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of gross and taxable sales by Rs. 30,00,000 was unjustified and unwarranted. The Additional Commissioner disposed of the revision petition by enhancing the assessment by Rs. 20,00,000 as against the admitted gross turnover of Rs. 35,93,402 and charged the entire enhanced amount of Rs. 20,00,000 to tax subject to deduction under section 5(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant thereupon took the matter in further revision to the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, contending that the conclusions arrived at by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, were wholly unwarranted and that while exercising his power of revision under section 20(3) of the Act, the Commissioner had to confine himself to the examination of the material before the assessing officer and could not take additional facts into consideration. The Board negatived both the contentions and rejected the revision application. Thereupon the appellant made an application to the Board under section 21(1) of the Act requesting that the points of law arising from its decision be referred for decision to the High Court. Although at the hearing of the application, the appellant stressed that reference be made on three points, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was initiated long before the filing of the revision application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. Though both these contentions are inextricably linked up, we shall deal with them separately. Turning to the first contention, we wish to make it clear that the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction varies from statute to statute and it is difficult to make general observations in regard thereto. For ascertaining the true scope, content and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, of Commercial Taxes, under the Act, it is necessary to notice section 20 thereof, which in so far as is material for the purpose of these appeals, stood thus at the relevant time: "20. (3) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner upon application or of his own motion may revise any assessment made or order passed under this Act or the Rules thereunder by a person appointed under section 3 to assist him, and subject as aforesaid, the Board of Revenue may, in like manner, revise any assessment made or order passed by the Commissioner: Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 299., are also relevant: "The purposes of this Act are twofold, viz., the levy of a general tax on the sale of goods to supplement the lost revenues and for promoting the general public good; and, secondly, to see that this is done under the provisions of the Act and not by carrying out in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Therefore, a revisional authority has to be created. What is revision? The essence of revisional jurisdiction lies in the duty of the superior tribunal or officer entrusted with such jurisdiction to see that the subordinate tribunals or officers keep themselves within the bounds prescribed by law and that they do what their duty requires them to do and that they do it in a legal manner. This jurisdiction being one of superintendence and correction in appropriate cases, it is exercisable even suo motu as is clear from the numerous statutory provisions relating to revision found in various Acts and Regulations such as the Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Income-tax Act, etc. The jurisdiction of suo motu revision is not cribbed and cabined or confined by conditions and qualifications. The purpose of such an amplitude being giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectifying the defect to do so does not amount to enlarging the jurisdiction conferred by section 12(2)." It will also be apposite in this connection to refer to the following observations made by the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Madura Knitting Co. Ltd. [1959] 10 S.T.C. 155.: "The powers given to the revising authority under section 12(2) were not confined to errors patent on the face of the record but would extend to probing further into the records like calling for despatch registers and other evidence." It will also be useful in this connection to refer to the decision of this court in Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay [1968] 21 S.T.C. 383 (S.C.); [1968] 2 S.C.R. 492., where this court did not accept the principle laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.G. Lakshmaiah Setty Sons [1961] 12 S.T.C. 663., that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax while exercising revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act of 1946 or of 1953 or of 1959 could not travel beyond the material or record that is available to the assessing authority and was not entitled to find data to institute an enquiry so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.R. 891 (S.C.)., there were sections 34 and 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which enabled escaped turnover or escaped income to be brought to tax. In the Act before us, however, there are no separate or specific provisions for assessment of escaped turnover which may, by implication, be said to exclude from the ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner the taking of additional facts into consideration and enhancing the gross turnover. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in repelling the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Desai and in holding that the High Court was right in answering the first question referred to it by the Board of Revenue in the affirmative. This takes us to the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant which is covered by the second question referred by the Board of Revenue at the requisition of the High Court. For effectively dealing with this contention, it is necessary to advert to the following two provisions, viz., section 14 of the Act and rule 80A of the Rules: "14. (1) The Commissioner may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, require any dealer- (a) to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its cash memos and books of account. Another opportunity to explain the suspicious circumstances relating to the alleged suppression of the turnover as also to refute the material collected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, as a result of the investigation made by him and to show cause why action to subject the escaped turnover to tax be not taken was afforded to the appellant by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, when on receipt of the aforesaid report dated December 27, 1960, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, he gave a notice to the former and furnished him with a full copy of the report. It cannot, therefore, be maintained with any show of force that, in admitting and relying on the aforesaid report dated December 27, 1960, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, committed any illegality or breach of any statutory provision or rule or transgressed the limits of his jurisdiction. It will also not be out of place to mention that the contention which is the subject- matter of the second question was never raised before the Board of Revenue as appears from the statement of the case dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
