1968 (2) TMI 114 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Error in law by the Tribunal in refusing to consider further evidence.
2. Justification of ex parte assessment by the Sales Tax Officer.
3. Admissibility of evidence at the revision stage.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Error in Law by the Tribunal in Refusing to Consider Further Evidence
The primary question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal committed an error in law by refusing to consider the further evidence which the Deputy Commissioner had permitted the applicant to produce. The Tribunal concluded that evidence should typically be produced before the original authority, and the applicant's failure to do so justified the Tribunal's decision to ignore such evidence at the revision stage. The Tribunal held that the proper time for producing documents is before the original assessing authority, and if not done, any other authority must justify why it allows such evidence at a later stage.

2. Justification of Ex Parte Assessment by the Sales Tax Officer
The Sales Tax Officer issued notices to the applicant for verification of books, but the applicant failed to comply and rectify discrepancies despite several opportunities. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer made assessments to the best of his judgment. The applicant's appeals were dismissed due to non-payment of the directed tax amount. The Tribunal upheld the ex parte assessment, stating it was fully justified given the applicant's non-compliance and negligence.

3. Admissibility of Evidence at the Revision Stage
The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax initially allowed the applicant to produce accounts and documents during the revision stage, but his successor, Shri H.B. Munshi, rejected the request to modify the ex parte assessment based on these documents. The Tribunal supported this decision, emphasizing that the applicant had forfeited his right to be assessed based on his books due to his intransigence. The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Commissioner had taken a liberal view in giving some relief but found no reason to interfere with the orders in revision.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953
The Tribunal's revisional powers under section 31 were scrutinized. The court held that the Tribunal has broad jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the Collector, including adjudicating on the merits and procedures followed by subordinate authorities. The Tribunal can decide whether documents or evidence should be admitted at a late stage, and it is not bound to accept the Deputy Commissioner's discretion in admitting such evidence. The Tribunal has the authority to ignore improperly admitted evidence and adjudicate based on the merits of the case.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the Tribunal did not commit any error in law by refusing to consider the further evidence permitted by the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision to ignore such evidence was justified, considering the applicant's failure to produce it at the appropriate stage. The references were answered in the negative, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 250 to the opposite side, with the fee paid by the applicant forfeited to the State.

← Previous Next →