1970 (3) TMI 133 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction and propriety of orders passed by the judge (Revisions) disposing of the revision application on merits.
2. Arbitrariness of the assessment made by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and propriety of orders passed by the judge (Revisions) disposing of the revision application on merits:
The case involved two references concerning the same assessee under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee failed to appear for assessment leading to ex parte orders. Subsequently, appeals against these orders were dismissed as time-barred. The assessee then filed revision applications, which were partly allowed by the judge (Revisions). The revising authority raised questions regarding the propriety of the judge (Revisions) deciding on merits post condonation of delay. The court held that the revising authority's jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act is broad, allowing it to either remand the case for decision on merits or decide itself. The court emphasized that the assessee, having invited the revising authority to consider merits, cannot challenge the order later. The court reframed the abstract question to assess the legality and propriety of the judge (Revisions) decision, concluding it was legal and proper in this case.

Issue 2: Arbitrariness of the assessment made by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax:
The second question raised was whether the assessment by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax was arbitrary. The judge (Revisions) had reduced the taxable turnover based on the assessee's past record, considering the previous assessments. The court found that the judge (Revisions) had not acted arbitrarily but had relied on relevant past records to determine the turnover. The court noted that the best judgment assessment considers past records, especially when current records are not available. Consequently, the court concluded that the assessment made by the judge (Revisions) was not arbitrary based on the past record analysis.

In conclusion, the court answered both questions in favor of the judge (Revisions) and upheld the assessment made by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was awarded costs, and the counsel's fee was also assessed accordingly.