TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative, the file was closed and the subject order dated 7th December, 2000, came to be passed. Held that:- This is not a case where any order to the prejudice of the applicant-dealer has been passed because of non availability or non production of the records. The Second Appellate Order initially passed on 23rd June, 2010, recites the facts. The Revisional Authority passed the order ex-parte on scrutiny of the case records underlying the assessment order dated 30th November, 1995. Thus, the records before the Assessing Authority were taken into consideration. The dealer was called upon on the basis thereof to satisfy the Revisional Authority as to why the assessment order should not be revised. There was absolutely no prejudice, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in question is zinc oxide, a chemical covered by Schedule Entry C-II-102 and, according to the Revenue, liable to tax at 10% with effect from 1st June, 1992. The assessment in the case of the petitioner resulted in only a demand of ₹ 6524/- being raised. According to the Tribunal, the scrutiny of the case records pertaining to the underlying assessment order was undertaken and which resulted in a revisional exercise. The Revising Authority held that the applicant is dealing in zinc oxide covered by the Schedule entry and is liable to tax at 10% but that taxable sales were disclosed for the same period in the returns furnished by the petitioner and the petitioner had computed the amount at the rate of 4% and paid taxes accordingly. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia, on the phraseology of Rule 54 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Ramdas Laxmidas Vol. 38 STC 354. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B.B.Sharma appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that none of these questions can be termed as questions of law. This is an attempt at re-appreciation and reappraisal or revisiting factual findings. There is no prohibition in law for exercise of the revisional power provided the statutory stipulations are maintained. The exercise of revisional power is not dependent upon the act of the assessee or the dealer either maintaining or refusing to maintain or produce the relevant record. The Revisional Authority, however, found that several opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod, was made on 27th April, 1954. In their returns and in the course of assessment, the respondents claimed to deduct the turnover of certain sales from their gross turnover of sales. Some of the deductions so claimed were allowed by the Sales Tax Officer, while others were rejected. The only deductions with which the court was concerned in the said case were the one referable to section 6(3)-Rule I(ii)(a). That permits a deduction from the gross turnover in respect of all sales or supplies of goods in respect of the period in question to a registered dealer holding a licence under section 8B of the goods certified by him as being intended for resale or for use as containers and other materials for the packing of goods to be sold or supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s arising therefrom. There is no statutory obligation on a dealer to preserve these documents. To hold otherwise on the grounds of an implied obligation or as a rule of prudence would run counter to common sense and the notions of justice, equity and good conscience. Therefore, the findings of this Court are not in the abstract, but in furtherance of the answer and opinion of this Court on the question of law arising out of a peculiar controversy. 9. We do not see how any assistance can be derived from this judgment in the present case. 10. This is not a case where any order to the prejudice of the applicant-dealer has been passed because of non availability or non production of the records. The Second Appellate Order initially passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer any questions when all that has been done is to find out as to whether the Revisional Authority has rightly exercised the power vested in it. That exercise of the power by the Revisional Authority was questioned by the applicant-dealer in a substantive appeal. That has been decided by the initial order of 23rd June, 2010. In deciding the Reference Application, we find that the same reasons and conclusions have been reiterated. Once other questions that are proposed raise mixed issues, then, all the more we are disinclined to exercise our powers under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 12. We are of the view that the Application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
