1982 (11) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 44(2) of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for direction to Board of Revenue to state a case and refer questions of law.
- Assessment of tax for financial year 1970-71 based on gross turnover discrepancy.
- Dispute regarding remand of case for reassessment by Board of Revenue.
- Legal justification of remand under section 38(5) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, seeking direction for the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer questions of law arising from an order in Sales Tax Appeal No. 322-PBR/77. The applicant, engaged in the business of motor parts and other items, was initially assessed for the financial year 1970-71 with a gross turnover discrepancy. The assessing authority, after an inspection by the Flying Squad, determined the gross turnover at Rs. 5,50,000, deviating from the dealer's reported turnover of Rs. 3,73,969. Subsequently, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner provided ad hoc relief of Rs. 40,000, which was further appealed by the assessee. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for re-examination and additional inquiry, leading to the current legal challenge.

The primary contention raised was whether the Board of Revenue was justified in law to remand the case for reassessment, especially considering that the assessment order and the relief granted had become final due to the absence of an appeal by the department against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. The applicant argued that the remand might result in an enhancement of the assessment, potentially nullifying the relief granted. On the other hand, the Government Advocate representing the department asserted that the Board possessed the authority to remand the matter under section 38(5) of the Act. Consequently, the central question for consideration revolved around the legality of the Board's decision to remand the case for reassessment, with other suggested questions being deemed irrelevant to the order of the Board of Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment partly allowed the application, directing the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer the specific question of law concerning the legality of the remand order. The parties were instructed to bear their respective costs for the application, bringing clarity to the dispute surrounding the reassessment process and the authority of the Board under the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act.