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

1995 (7) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is to be taxed at 3 per cent. Therefore, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the assessing authority in levying tax at 1½ per cent is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, he interfered with the order passed by the assessing officer under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Additional Deputy Commissioner after issuing notice to the assessee and after hearing the objections raised by the assessee, levied tax on the sales of hides and skins at 3 per cent. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the order of the assessing author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... did not introduce any new addition. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 1. Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Pvt. Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal [1976] 38 STC 1 (SC); 2.. State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875 (SC); and 3.. A decision of this Court rendered in Venkateswara Metal Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 74 STC 364. 3.. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that inasmuch as the assessment was made correctly with regard to the hides and skins by the assessing authority, there is no ground for interference by the Additional Deputy Commissioner under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the first sales of hides and skins. It is well established that the Additional Deputy Commissioner while exercising his jurisdiction under section 32 of the Act, it is not possible for him to make a reassessment by himself. 6.. In Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Pvt. Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal [1976] 38 STC 1, cited supra, the Supreme Court, while considering the provision of sections 14(1) and 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and rule 80A of the Rules, held as under: "The purposes of this Act are twofold, viz., the levy of a general tax on the sale of goods to supplement the lost revenues and for promoting the general public good; and, secondly, to see that this is done under the provisions of the Act and not b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12, 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and rule 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, the Supreme Court held as under: ".......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 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 taxpayer. Similarly the power to make a best judgment assessment is vested .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisions of the Act and therefore a best judgment assessment or an original assessment by the Board under section 34 on the ground of escapement of turnover is bad in law and unsustainable. It is not a mere subjective satisfaction that is envisaged in section 34 but it should stand the test of objectiveness as also the prescribed guidelines set in the section itself and it should be in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. 7.. The learned Government Advocate also brought to our notice a decision of this Court rendered in Venkateswara Metal Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 74 STC 364. According to the facts arising in this case, the original assessment was not revised under section 16 of the Act before that assessment w .....

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