1975 (2) TMI 93 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act post amendment.
2. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner in revising the assessment order.
3. Contention of reassessment or fresh assessment by Deputy Commissioner.
4. Deductions permissible under section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved tax revision cases where the petitioners, registered dealers in paddy and rice, challenged the assessment of turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1964-65. The assessment included sales of paddy in inter-State trade. Initially, the assessment was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner based on a Supreme Court judgment. However, post an amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act in 1969, the Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment, restoring the original order and denying relief granted earlier. The petitioners contended that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by revising the assessment. The Tribunal held that the revision was within the powers conferred by the Act and Central Sales Tax Act, rejecting the petitioners' objections.

The first contention raised by the petitioners was that the Deputy Commissioner's order amounted to reassessment or fresh assessment. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional power under section 20(2) of the Act. The revision did not involve a fresh assessment but merely rectified the appellate order based on the amended law, restoring the original assessment. It was clarified that there was no determination of turnover afresh by the Deputy Commissioner.

The second contention focused on the deductions permissible under section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order did not allow these deductions, making it illegal. However, the Court explained that the deductions under section 8A were already applicable under rule 11(2) of the Central Sales Tax Rules at the time of the original assessment. The amendment merely incorporated these deductions into the Act. The Court directed the assessing authority to determine the taxable turnover considering the deductions under section 8A, leaving the decision on entitlement to deductions to the assessing authority.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision cases, upholding the Deputy Commissioner's revision of the assessment post-amendment. The petitioners' contentions regarding reassessment and deductions permissible under section 8A were addressed, with the Court clarifying the legal aspects and directing the assessing authority to consider the deductions during reassessment.