TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner for the period ending September 30, 1988 under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 was completed by the respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia on April 25, 1991 under section 9(4) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, summarily on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Taxes and the turnover of the petitioner was determined summarily to be Rs. 79,000 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 5,168 was determined as tax payable by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,899 was levied as interest. The order of assessment is at annexure I. Thereafter respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia Zone, issued a notice dated February 5, 1996 purported to act under section 36(1) read with section 74(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marily to the best judgment of the assessing officer on the basis of the local enquiry made by the Inspector of Taxes. The relevant portion of section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 reads as under: "36.(1). The Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the dealer or the person to whom the order relates an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order as the circumstances of the case justify, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The powers under both the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, namely sections 18 and 36 operate in two different fields and is vested into two different authorities. To permit the revisional authority to exercise power under section 36 in the facts of the instant case would be to permit the said authority to trench upon the powers of the primary authority under section 18 of the Act. Such a situation has been disapproved by the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875 (SC)." 5.. In view of the above decision, the impugned notice dated February 5, 1996 (annexure II) and the suo motu revisional order dated April 29, 1996 (annexure III) are set aside and quashed. This writ petition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
