1970 (11) TMI 86 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper statement of the case not provided by Financial Commissioner.
2. Discrepancy in total turnover shown by the assessee.
3. Assessment based on best judgment by assessing authority.
4. Revision by Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
5. Revision by Financial Commissioner.
6. Legal question referred to the High Court under section 22(2) of the Act.
7. Interpretation of section 21(1) of the Act regarding revisional authority's power on questions of fact.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case where the Financial Commissioner failed to provide a proper statement of the case to the High Court as directed. The Tribunal was then instructed to draft the statement accurately, with guidance provided on the process based on the relevant section of the Sales Tax Act.

2. The case involved a discrepancy in the total turnover declared by the assessee, which led to the assessing authority rejecting the account books and finalizing the assessment based on "best judgment." The total turnover was found to be significantly understated, resulting in a revised taxable turnover.

3. Following the initial assessment, the assessee appealed to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, whose decision was partially upheld by the Appellate Commissioner. Subsequently, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner revised the assessment, leading to further challenges by the assessee.

4. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner's revision was contested by the assessee before the Financial Commissioner, who affirmed the revisional order. This sequence of revisions and appeals culminated in the assessee seeking legal recourse by applying to the High Court under section 22(2) of the Act.

5. The legal question referred to the High Court centered on whether the Excise and Taxation Commissioner had the authority to reverse the factual findings of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court analyzed the relevant legal provisions and precedent to determine the extent of the revisional authority's power.

6. The High Court, after detailed examination, concluded that the revisional authority indeed had the jurisdiction to review and rectify errors, including factual errors, made by subordinate authorities. Citing relevant case law and statutory provisions, the High Court upheld the revisional authority's power to intervene in matters of fact and legality.

7. Consequently, the High Court answered the legal question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The State was awarded costs, and the reference was resolved in favor of the revenue based on the interpretation of the revisional authority's powers under the Sales Tax Act.