9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed its returns under the Act and CST Act before the CTO on different dates. On an examination of the returns filed, books of accounts and other documents produced by the petitioner, the CTO completed the assessments for the said years on different dates. With the assessments made by the CTO, the petitioner was not aggrieved and did not challenge them in appeals or revisions. 4.. But, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) City Division-II, Bangalore-9 ("DC") to whom the CTO is subordinate, initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under section 21 of the KST Act in relation to all the said assessments and has issued show cause notices to the petitioner on different dates. A detailed reference to all of them except for the assessment periods 1979-80 and 1980-81 to appreciate the special contentions urged before us, is not very necessary. 5.. For the assessment period 1979-80 (22nd October, 1979 to 7th November, 1980) the DC has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 5th March, 1984 (annexure A in W.P. No. 5112 of 1984) proposing to revise the assessment order made by the CTO on 26th March, 1981 (annexure B in W.P. No. 5112 of 1984) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area over the proceedings and orders of the ACCT and CTO. Sri Gandhi did not dispute that the officer who had initiated suo motu revisional proceedings was the DC appointed by Government. The fact that there is one DC designated as DC (Administration) and another DC as DC (Appeals) was only for purposes of smooth and efficient discharge of duties. The designation and internal allocation of work among the several DCs of the area for efficient and smooth discharge of the duties was hardly relevant to decide the jurisdiction and competence of the DC. Under section 21(2) of the Act the DC (Administration) and DC (Appeals) occupy one and the same position. The prohibition contained in section 21(2) not to exercise suo motu revisional proceedings when an assessee under the Act had already filed an appeal does not touch on the powers of either of the DCs to exercise suo motu power of revision under section 21(2) of the Act. For these reasons, we see no merit in this contention of Sri Gandhi and we reject the same. 13.. Sri Gandhi had urged that persons similarly situated were subjected to a hostile, discriminatory and arbitrary treatment in that those picked and dealt under section 21(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f revision over their respective subordinates within their respective territorial areas over which they function. Section 22A confers power of revision over the entire State on the Commissioner who is the head of the department. Both these powers are conferred to safeguard the interests of public revenue. When we have regard to the magnitude of work involved in the ever growing department of sales tax which is one of the main and elastic sources of revenue, it is somewhat odd to expect the Commissioner to examine all assessment orders made by all the original and appellate authorities that are subordinate to him under the Act. If we have regard to all these aspects, as we are bound to, then there is hardly any ground to hold that section 21 of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. 20.. We are of the view that section 21 of the Act does not subject anybody to a hostile, discriminatory and arbitrary treatment at all. We are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is more imaginary than real. 21.. Before making his order the DC is enjoined to issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing. An adverse order made by the DC is appealable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it was premature to adjudicate the same. 28.. We have no doubt that the language employed by the DC is not happily worded and had given room to an unnecessary complaint by the petitioner. We must really construe all the notices as the DC proposing to revise the orders in conformity with section 21(2) of the Act and in no other manner. When so construed, we must read the sentence extracted earlier as hereunder: "I therefore under the powers vested in me under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act, hereby propose to revise the assessment order dated 20-3-1980 in the interest of Government revenue." This is in conformity with the Act and that is what the DC had really proposed to do. We need hardly say that the DC should examine and decide the proceedings from this standpoint and the principles enunciated by this Court in Pathikonda Balasubba Setty's case [1967] 65 ITR 252. 29.. With the disposal of this general grievance, we propose to deal with the two specific grievances in Writ Petitions Nos. 5112 and 5159 of 1984 that are peculiar to them only. 30.. For the assessment year 1979-80 or for the period from 22nd October, 1979 to 7th November, 1980, the CTO had made an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully examined the original file of the DC produced before us. What had really happened was that the DC had proposed to issue the second notice as the first notice issued by him was somewhat very general and did not contain specific grounds on which he proposed to revise the same. We wish that the DC had made that clear in the order sheet maintained by him and had avoided an unnecessary controversy over the same. But, that infirmity, if any, cannot be a ground to hold that he had made an order on the first show cause notice. We are of the view that on any principle we cannot hold so. 38.. When the DC had not made an order on the first show cause notice, his power to revise is not exhausted. So long as the DC had not made his order, it was open to him to issue a further notice setting out further grounds which according to him justified his interference under section 21(2) of the Act. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this contention of Sri Gandhi and we reject the same. 39.. Sri Gandhi had urged a large number of grounds on merits as justifying the invalidation of the show cause notices issued by the DC. 40.. We are of the view that on the very terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
