TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is their case that this oil is pure coconut oil and that it is edible oil. According to them, this oil is marketed essentially for the purpose of cooking and allied purposes, all of them coming within the broad framework of the concept of edibility. The assessing authority after computing the relevant figures from the records produced before it for the assessment year in question which happens to be April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997 completed the assessment on the footing that the product in question was edible coconut oil. The department through the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) then served notice on the respondents under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, dated February 25, 2000 regarding the solitary contention that the assessment requires to be revised since it was the case of the department that the oil in question was being used as a hair oil and that consequently, it would fall under Sl. No. 10(i) of Part T of Schedule II of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 liable to basic tax of 12 per cent surcharge, cess and turnover tax thereon. To summarise the controversy briefly, the department's contention was that the original assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain reasons why we have very briefly summarised the heads of controversy and stopped short of either indicating our views or our findings thereof because in our considered view, the issue in question may be open to further examination on the basis of any better material which may be available. We do not propose to shut the department out from doing this nor for that matter do we propose to prejudice the assessees by making any observation because the rule of fairness and openness would preclude us from doing either of the two. The learned Government Advocate submitted that this is a case where the facts speak for themselves and it was his submission that edible oil is being marketed progressively in larger and larger containers for reasons of economics and that where one finds that the product is being sold in small containers the irresistible conclusion is that this oil is marketed in this form exclusively for the toilet/cosmetic use, in so far as a person who desires to use the oil as hair oil naturally buys it in small quantities presented in small handy containers whereas the customers who use it for cooking or edible purposes would buy it in much larger volume. We need to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been done or if it has ignored various significant facts of the record or the law that a revision would be justified. The notice does cryptically state that the original assessment order is legally incorrect, etc., but apart from bald allegations that the oil is used as a hair oil there is no supporting material or charge against the assessees in this notice. We refer to this aspect of the case because either the revisional authority must set out briefly the heads of the charge that emerge under the head of error, etc., vis-a-vis the assessment order or more importantly it is mere expedient and convenient to record the material that would justify the revision. In this context, what we need to also reiterate is the fact that the Tribunal in its order has referred to the following three decisions: (i) Kumbla Krishna Anatha Prabhu v. State of Mysore (1967) KLJ (Tri Supp) 91 (HC)(DB). (ii) Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [1990] 79 STC 10 (Gauhati). (iii) A.K. Corporation v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1995] 96 STC 31 (All.) The reason for doing this is because the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the revisional authority is not permitted to draw on extraneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omes necessary, the consequences are extremely harsh to the assessee for the simple reason that the period of time has already elapsed and subsequent or later revision in the rate of taxation invariably becomes oppressive. The law however does permit such a procedure, but only in special cases, and that exception would not apply to the facts of the present case. We are here concerned under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act with a simple question as to whether the revision in question was justified for the year in question and on this record, whether at this point of time on the basis of arguments advanced at a stage long after the proceeding has been even disposed of by the Tribunal a remand would be either desirable or for that matter permissible. We do not propose to lay down any inflexible principle but all that we need to point out is that the general rule of finality would bar a remand in the present case on the additional ground that is on record now limiting the issue to the present assessment year in question with which we are concerned, that the department does not have any concrete supportive evidence or material that would justify its stand. It is in this background that we ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
