1973 (10) TMI 49 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to remand the matter.
2. Scope of revisional powers of the Commissioner.
3. Authority to assess escaped turnover.
4. Corrective actions by the Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to remand the matter instead of making a final order himself. The appellant contended that the Commissioner should have made the final order directly. However, the court held that the Commissioner's power includes the authority to cancel the assessment and direct a fresh assessment, necessitating a remand to the authorities below him as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 22-A of the Act.

2. The second issue concerns the scope of the revisional powers of the Commissioner. The Commissioner, in this case, had issued a show cause notice based on additional investigation conducted by the Commercial Tax Officer, which the appellant argued was beyond the revisional authority's jurisdiction. The court clarified that the Commissioner, under section 22-A, has the power to conduct necessary inquiries and pass orders based on the circumstances of the case. However, the Commissioner should not exceed the limitations of the revisional powers, as highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court.

3. The third issue pertains to the authority to assess escaped turnover. The court emphasized that any turnover that has escaped assessment should be brought to assessment by the assessing authority under the original jurisdiction conferred by the Act, not by the revisional authority. Escaped turnover exceeding the assessed amount cannot be addressed under section 22-A but should be dealt with under section 12-A, as clarified by the Supreme Court decision cited.

4. The final issue involves the corrective actions taken by the Commissioner. The court found that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was arbitrary and open to correction in revision. It was determined that the Commissioner should have set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanded the appeal for fresh disposal instead of setting aside all orders below and directing the Commercial Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. Consequently, the court modified the order under appeal, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remitting the case for fresh disposal in accordance with the law.