9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1957 for the assessment year 1998-99 and his net turnover was determined as Rs. 33,79,460. The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Eluru Division, by his proceedings dated January 31, 2005, revised the assessment and determined the net turnover as Rs. 83,17,570. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A No. 703 of 2005. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein contended that, while the pre-revision show-cause notice was issued by the predecessorDeputy Commissioner on November 15, 2001, the final order was passed by the successor-Deputy Commissioner on January 31, 2005, that the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer for Rs. 75,02,429 relating to earth work was ignored and that the Deputy Commissioner had determined the turnover under rule 6(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 in respect of the executed works. The petitioner relied on Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay [1968] 21 STC 383 (SC) to contend that the suo motu revision was based on mere conjectures, with no ground for invoking the revisional powers, and was, therefore, liable to be quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal before the Tribunal, that the books of account were lost and had stated that a police complaint and a public advertisement in the newspaper was given, that, in any case, the books were lost subsequent to finalisation of assessment by the assessing authority and that it did not affect the assessment/revision, since the corroborative evidence had been obtained and finalized. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that even in the objections filed by the petitioner, before the Deputy Commissioner dated October 10, 2001 (which was received on December 14, 2001), no reference was made regarding the loss of the books of account, that the petitioner's contention that no further notice had been issued after the revision show-cause notice dated October 31, 2001 was incorrect as the petitioner was called upon, vide final notices dated October 23, 2002 and July 14, 2004, to produce the books of account, that, in the reply submitted on November 26, 2002, the petitioner had requested that, as he was unwell, he be granted one month's time to produce the records and that there was no whisper in the said letter regarding loss of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o liable to be dismissed in limine. Under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the APGST Act, the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner have been conferred the suo motu power to revise any order passed by a subordinate authority, if such order or proceeding is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The proceedings for revision, if started suo motu, must not be based on mere conjectures. Interference must be on sufficient grounds and, if it is considered necessary that some additional enquiry should be made to arrive at a proper and just decision, there can be no bar to the revising authority holding a further enquiry or directing such an enquiry to be held by some other appropriate authority, and to admit additional material. (Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. [1968] 21 STC 383 (SC)). The Deputy Commissioner (CT) exercised the power of revision on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer had incorrectly allowed the exemption on certain turnover of the petitioner without verifying the books of account, other material and corroborative evidence. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated June 18, 2001 does not disclose examination by him of the books of account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on a turnover of Rs.10,00,270 in respect of the construction works/civil works at 35 per cent of the total contract receipts for such works on the basis of the particulars of the works given by the executive engineer, that the Commercial Tax Officer had allowed the exemption without verifying the books of account or any other material and corroborative evidence, that this was found fault with by the Deputy Commissioner while withdrawing the said exemptions, that no evidence was adduced in support of the contention that the petitioner's books of account were lost while coming from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tadepalligudem, that these assertions were bald and vague, that not even the dates of losing the records, the date of the police complaint and the date of the paper advertisement were mentioned by the petitioner, that neither the final assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer nor the revision order of the Deputy Commissioner made any mention regarding loss of the books of account and other evidence, that such non-recording was not assailed by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal in form II, that the Commercial Tax Officer had not even stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner passing an order based on the show-cause notice issued by the previous Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal observed that no authority was shown to them that the successor-Deputy Commissioner could not pass a revision order on the basis of the pre-revision show-cause notice issued by his predecessor, that it was not the petitioner's case that the predecessor-Deputy Commissioner had personally heard him and, without considering those arguments advanced by him before the predecessor-Deputy Commissioner, the successor-Deputy Commissioner had passed final orders, that the views of the predecessor-Deputy Commissioner were very much available in the pre-revision show-cause notice, that the objections of the petitioner, in respect of those proposals, were also available in writing before the successor-Deputy Commissioner and, on the basis of these documents, a decision was taken by the successor-Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order and that, from the detailed impugned revision orders, the Tribunal was unable to persuade itself to hold that it was passed mechanically and without application of mind. The mere fact that the revisional order was passed 3½ years afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may entail, its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. These principles do not apply to all cases and situations. (R.S. Dass v. Union of India [1986] Supp SCC 617). Whether any particular principle of natural justice would be applicable to a particular situation and whether there has been any infraction of the application of that principle, has to be judged, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The basic requirement is that there must be fair play in action and the decision must be arrived at in a just and objective manner with regard to the relevance of the material and reasons. (K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [1984] 1 SCC 43). The application of natural justice depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in a particular case. (K.L. Tripathi [1984] 1 SCC 43, Union of India v. P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850, Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore AIR 1972 SC 32). The requirements of natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
