1973 (5) TMI 86 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Power of enhancement on revision application under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Applicability of rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, to a best judgment assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Power of Enhancement on Revision Application
The case involved a best judgment assessment where the dealer failed to produce books of account, leading to an estimate by the Commercial Tax Officer. The dealer appealed, and the assessment was reduced by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the revision petition, leading the dealer to file a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, West Bengal. The Board revised the assessment order, making fresh assessment of tax at a gross turnover of Rs. 3,00,000, disallowing claims without proper declaration forms or evidence. The Member, Board of Revenue, emphasized the need for declaration forms and evidence to allow claims. The High Court, referring to a previous judgment, held that the Board of Revenue had the power to enhance assessments on revision applications. The court emphasized that the power of enhancement should provide a reasonable opportunity to the dealer. The court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the respondent.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules
The second question raised in the case related to the applicability of rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules to a best judgment assessment. The petitioner contended that the Member, Board of Revenue, had erred in disallowing benefits for non-supply of declaration forms, acting on the principles of rule 27A. However, the court found that the Board of Revenue had not specifically mentioned rule 27A in its order. The court highlighted that best judgment assessments should not be arbitrary and must have a basis for deductions. Even if the principles of rule 27A were applied, the court found no illegality in the Board's order. As rule 27A was not explicitly referenced, the court declined to answer this question, stating it did not arise from the facts of the case. Therefore, the court declined to answer or reframe the question, as it found no illegality in the Board's order.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the first question affirmatively, affirming the power of enhancement on revision applications. The second question regarding the applicability of rule 27A was not answered as it did not arise from the case's facts. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.