Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (10) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p before this Court challenging the aforesaid notice by contending that the same has not been lawfully issued and therefore, would be open to appropriate interference by this Court. 2.. The facts of the case, in brief, may be recited hereinbelow: The assessments of the petitioner-company in respect of its liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the two periods in question were completed under section 17(4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner applied to the authority for cancellation of the aforesaid best judgment assessment and the Superintendent of Taxes, Oral. i.e., the assessing authority, asked the petitioner to appear before him on April 19, 1993 w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt in the case of Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [1990] 79 STC 10 has contended that to enable the authority to exercise the power of suo motu revision conferred by section 36(1) of the Act of 1993, two conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Learned counsel has argued that this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh [1990] 79 STC 10 has interpreted the expression "erroneous" to mean an error committed by the assessing officer in respect of his jurisdiction meaning thereby that either the assessment has been made without jurisdiction or the same has been made with material irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has fur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d therefore, the impugned notice dated September 23, 1993 would be wholly without jurisdiction. 5.. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has sought to controvert the arguments advanced by the writ petitioner by contending that the present writ application is a premature one, inasmuch as, by the impugned notice, the petitioner has been merely asked to show cause and it will be always open for the petitioner to advance the arguments now put forward before the revisional authority. On the said basis, the learned Government counsel has argued that this Court ought not to exercise its discretionary power to issue a writ in favour of the writ petitioner. On the merits of the case, the argument of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of other modes as contemplated by the Act. In the instant case what is noticeable is that the assessments had been completed by the assessing officer upon due and proper satisfaction on the basis of the records produced by the assessee. No error, jurisdictional in nature, is disclosed in the assessment orders passed though the revisional authority has subsequently come into possession of certain materials which in its opinion has rendered the assessments bad in law. The same, however would not justify recourse to the suo motu revisional power. The required correction, if any, has to be made by recourse to other modes within the four corners of the statute. 7.. Coming to the second argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nformation stated to be in possession of the revisional authority is correct, what has happened is that turnover has escaped assessment. Section 18 of the Assam Act, 1993 has contemplated a proceeding for determination of escaped turnover to make the same exigible to tax. The power to initiate a proceeding to determine escaped turnover is vested on the assessing officer and therefore, recourse to the impugned notice and the power under section 36(1) of the Act of 1993 on basis thereof cannot be held to be justified. The argument advanced on behalf of the State that the present challenge is premature has to be negatived inasmuch as submission to the jurisdiction of an authority would only be justified if the authority concerned is legally em .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates