TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the accounts were called for and checked up, they disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 4,85,264.18 against Rs. 4,83,264.18 shown by the assessee in A2 returns. The assessing officer rejected the accounts and the returns produced by the assessee as incorrect and incomplete and determined the assessment to the best of judgment. The assessing officer arrived at the total taxable turnover as follows: "Turnover on sale of starch and thippi as per accounts ... Rs. 4,85,264.00 Add: 5% for defects ... 24,263.00 Add: Suppressions noticed as revealed by anamath records explained above ... 3,47,988.00 --------------- 8,57,515.00 Turnover on sale of starch and thippi proposed at 4% ... 6,827.00 Grease taxable at 8% ... 678.00 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner and issued notice. After noting the objections of the assessee, the Joint Commissioner passed a cryptic order in the revision which is in the following terms: ".......The fact remains that several slips containing purchases and sales, etc., were discovered at the time of inspection and that they were not accounted for. Even at the time of hearing, the assessees were not able to prove that they were all accounted for in the books of accounts produced before the department although opportunity was given to the assessees to prove their case. 1, therefore, find that the stand taken by the assessing officer was in order. Accordingly the objection was overruled and the proposal set forth in the notice is confirmed......." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the books of accounts produced before the department. 4.. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides we are of the view that this is a typical case where the Joint Commissioner has exercised the power of revision in a casual manner. It is settled law that this Court under section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act exercises wide powers in the appellate jurisdiction against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner under section 34 of the Act, exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The assessee/ appellant before us is against the order of the Joint Commissioner. When we have gone through the order of the Joint Commissioner carefully, we could see that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they make. Holding so, the Division Bench of this Court has further held as follows (at page 146): ".......In exercising the powers of revision, the Board is expected to concentrate its attention on the order which it seeks to revise. The order that is sought to be revised in the present case was that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If there was any wrong reasoning in the said order, it is, of course, open to the Board of Revenue to rectify the error in reasoning by taking appropriate action. But in the present case the order of the Board of Revenue says very little about any wrong reasoning in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner except to mention that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had proceeded erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
