9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1963 (1) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Commissioner to revise order under section 22-B of the Act. 2. Validity of initiating proceedings under section 22-B based on a notice. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Commissioner to revise order under section 22-B of the Act: The case involved the assessment of sales tax on a dealer for manganese ore transactions. The Sales Tax Officer initially found the dealer not liable for tax as the ore was exported. However, the Sales Tax Commissioner, using revisional powers under section 22-B, set aside the order for fresh assessment. The dealer contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order and that it was a case of escaped assessment under section 11-A. The court held that if the Sales Tax Officer's assessment was based on existing information and not new facts, revision under section 22-B was permissible. The court cited previous decisions to support that a mere change of opinion does not invoke section 11-A, allowing the Commissioner to exercise revisional powers. Validity of initiating proceedings under section 22-B based on a notice: The second issue involved the validity of initiating proceedings under section 22-B based on a notice issued to the dealer. The notice informed the dealer of the intention to reassess certain transactions for potential tax liability. The dealer argued that the notice did not comply with the requirements of section 22-B. The court disagreed, stating that the notice provided sufficient information about the proposed reassessment, giving the dealer an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that the notice need not specify the exact taxable turnover beforehand, as it would depend on the outcome of the reassessment. The court found the notice adequate and upheld the validity of initiating proceedings under section 22-B based on the notice. In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed that the Sales Tax Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the order under section 22-B and that the notice issued for initiating proceedings under section 22-B was valid. The court answered both questions in the affirmative, holding the dealer liable for costs and fixing the counsel's fee.
|
