1961 (3) TMI 87 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Special Commercial Tax Officer to revise assessment under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the State of Andhra Pradesh as the petitioner and an assessee under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as the respondent. The respondent, a dealer in motor spare parts, was initially assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 84,740-12-9. Subsequently, the assessment was revised by a Special Commercial Tax Officer based on seized account books showing an escaped turnover of Rs. 66,000. The respondent's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was dismissed, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed a further appeal, leading to the State filing a tax revision case (Tax Revision Case No. 24 of 1960).

The main issue for decision was whether the Special Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to revise the assessment under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The power to assess tax on escaped turnover is provided under section 14(4) of the Act, which authorizes the assessing authority to assess the tax on turnover that has escaped assessment. The term "assessing authority" is defined to include any person authorized by the State Government. A notification issued by the Government empowered the Commercial Tax Officer specially appointed for investigating evasions to exercise the powers of an assessing authority in cases of detected suppression or omission.

The respondent argued that under Rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, only the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess in cases where the turnover does not exceed 5 lakhs of rupees. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the assessing authority, as defined in section 2(1)(b), includes the officer appointed for investigating evasions as per the Government notification. The Court held that the notification did not conflict with Rule 31 and that both the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Special Commercial Tax Officer had the authority to assess the tax on escaped turnover.

In conclusion, the Court allowed Tax Revision Case No. 24 of 1960, stating that either the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or the Commercial Tax Officer appointed for investigating evasions could exercise the power under section 14(4) of the Act. The Court also allowed Tax Revision Cases Nos. 25, 26, and 27 of 1960 in line with the decision in Case No. 24.