TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of his judgment, the taxable turnover to be at Rs. 2,37,548.48, thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,01,290.49 to the returned turnover. At the time of making that assessment, the assessing officer did not invoke his power under section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act for levying a penalty for submission of an incorrect and false return. The order of the assessing authority was later revised by the Deputy Commissioner by enhancing the taxable turnover of the respondent to Rs. 3,00,000, and this resulted in an addition of Rs. 1,63,742.01 to the turnover returned by the respondent. The enhancement made by the Deputy Commissioner was based on a revised estimate made by him on the basis of the same material which was before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, the Deputy Commissioner has chosen to exercise the power under section 12(3) while exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 32. Dealing with the scope of section 12(3) of the Act, this court in State of Madras v. Ramulu Naidu[1965] 16 S.T.C. 865., expressed that where an officer, at the time if making an assessment order, was silent about imposition of penalty, it must be taken that the assessing authority had applied its mind and did not think it necessary to levy a penalty and that the same assessing authority or the succeeding assessing authority would have no jurisdiction to reopen the earlier assessment order for the purpose of levying penalty. This decision was considered in a later decision in M. Ramaswamy Pil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a finding. In a recent decision in Abdul Waheed v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1972] 30 S.T.C. 277., it has been held that the revisional authority cannot direct the assessing authority to exercise the power under section 12(3), which he has failed to exercise before and cannot, for that purpose, set aside the assessment which is otherwise found to be valid. In yet another decision in M/s. East India Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai (Tax Case No. 195 of 1966)1, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32, this court has expressed the view that the revisional authority can exercise its power only in relation to an order passed by the assessing aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
