TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Subsequently, on October 12, 1978, the assessing officer rectified the original assessment order. In the meanwhile, on December 5, 1981, the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Vellore, exercising his power under section 32 of the Act considered that the order passed by the assessing officer on February 6, 1976, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, revised the order passed by the assessing officer. As against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated December 5, 1981 by revising the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Commissioner revised the order of the assessing officer dated February 6, 1976 and not revised the order passed by the assessing officer dated October 12, 1978. Learned counsel relying upon various decisions contended that once if the assessing officer rectified the earlier order, the original order passed by the assessing officer alone will be in existence and the rectified order will form part of the original order. 4.. Learned counsel further submitted that what was done by the assessing officer was only rectifying a mistake occurred in the earlier original order passed by him and, therefore, it is the original assessment order dated February 6, 1976, which is in existence for all practical purposes. In such an event, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Deputy Commissioner dated October 5, 1981, it was stated that what was rectified by him was the order passed by the assessing officer dated October 6, 1976, virtually the order dated October 12, 1978, alone was rectified. But when we go through the order of the Deputy Commissioner it would go to show that what was revised by him was not the order dated February 6, 1976, but the order dated October 12, 1978. In the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner it is stated that the assessing officer failed to note that the assessee had purchased hides and skins and sold wattle extract. The last local purchase of raw hides comes to Rs. 3,88,621 which is to be taxed at 3 per cent. The first sale of tanned hides amounts to Rs. 7,69,649 which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g exemption to the extent of Rs. 3,88,621 on the turnover of local purchase of raw hides and skins, which is the subject-matter of the revision made under section 32 of the Act by the Commissioner. Therefore, the original order passed by the assessing officer on October 12, 1978 is to be taken into account while arriving the time-limit for revision of assessment under section 32 of the Act. The date of order was mentioned wrongly in the Deputy Commissioner's order as February 6, 1976 instead of October 12, 1978. Therefore, revision order dated December 5, 1981 is within the period of limitation and the Tribunal was not correct in setting aside the order dated December 5, 1981. 8. Under such circumstances, we set aside the order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
