TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessments under the Bombay Sales Tax Act for the periods from October 18, 1963 to November 4, 1964, from November 5, 1964 to October 24, 1965 and from October 25, 1965 to November 12, 1966. The assessments were completed on September 9, 1967, November 20, 1967 and February 7, 1969, respectively. It is pertinent to mention that the Sales Tax Officer had computed amount of deduction on account of resale claim under section 8(ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act by applying pro rata or proportion method as the applicant was not able to identify its resales with the purchases from registered dealers. The amounts of deduction for the three periods were computed by the Sales Tax Officer at Rs. 11,94,078, Rs. 8,48,778 and Rs. 9,48,872 respectively. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 35 in the respective paper books. The only mistake, according to the Assistant Commissioner, committed by the Sales Tax Officer was that while applying the percentage of purchases from registered dealers to total purchases reduced by purchases on form 14, he had reduced the gross turnover by sales on form 14 only but not also by sales exempt under section 11. 5.. The question, therefore, is whether non-reduction of gross turnover further by sales exempt under section 11 before applying the percentage of purchases from registered dealers to total purchases reduced by purchases on form 14 was erroneous so as to give jurisdiction to the Assistant Commissioner to revise the assessments under section 57 or whether this was only a matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proper. It has been consistently applied even by this Tribunal." 7.. From the Special Bench order which is the main basis of the department's case, it cannot be concluded for more than one reason that the method approved by the Special Bench was the only proper method meaning thereby that all other methods including the one adopted in the present case by the Sales Tax Officer are improper or erroneous. In the first place, the formula adopted by the Sales Tax Officer for arriving at the figure of reduction under section 8(ii) in the present case was in conformity with the formula he had adopted for the earlier period following the Assistant Commissioner's order in revision in the assessee's own case. Secondly, the Special Bench itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases, be restricted to the record maintained by the officer subordinate to him, and can never make enquiry outside that record." "It would not invest the revising authority with power to launch upon enquiries at large so as either to trench upon the powers which are expressly reserved by the Act or by the Rules to other authorities or to ignore the limitations inherent in the exercise of those powers. For instance, the power to reassess escaped turnover is primarily vested by *Here italicised. rule 17 in the assessing officer and is to be exercised subject to certain limitations, and the revising authority will not be competent to make an enquiry for reassessing a tax-payer. Similarly, the power to make a best judgment assessment is veste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
