1973 (7) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate revision proceedings based on materials not part of the record before the taxing authority.

Analysis:
The case involved the opponent, a dealer in the business of manufacturing bricks, who was assessed as an unregistered dealer for certain periods and as a registered dealer for subsequent periods. The Deputy Commissioner initiated revision proceedings based on materials seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, which were not part of the record before the taxing authority. The opponent contended that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by considering additional materials not part of the original record.

The Tribunal found that the Deputy Commissioner indeed relied on materials not part of the original record before initiating revision proceedings. The Tribunal referred to previous Supreme Court judgments to determine the scope of revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act. It was held that the revising authority should only consider the record of the order or proceedings for scrutinizing legality or propriety, without delving into additional materials. The Tribunal concluded that the Deputy Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by initiating revision based on materials not part of the original record.

The revenue argued that even if the Deputy Commissioner could not consider the seized materials, he could order an inquiry where such materials could be legally examined. However, the Tribunal maintained that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority under section 57 of the Act to initiate proceedings based on materials outside the assessment record. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that the Deputy Commissioner could only consider the record before the Assistant Commissioner for revision purposes and not additional materials.

In conclusion, the High Court determined that the Deputy Commissioner, for initiating revision under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, could only consider the record of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and not materials outside that record. The State was directed to bear the opponent's costs, and the reference was answered accordingly.