1982 (4) TMI 275 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to revise Central sales tax assessment for 1968-69 based on extraneous records.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise a sales tax assessment for 1968-69. The assessing authority had omitted a turnover of Rs. 2,42,842.86, representing inter-State sales, from the assessment. The Deputy Commissioner, upon perusing the assessee's Central sales tax file, found that the turnover had been omitted from the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act but was included in the assessment order. The Deputy Commissioner, after satisfying himself that the turnover represented inter-State sales, revised the Central sales tax assessment to include the omitted amount. The assessee contended that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his powers by referring to extraneous records while revising the assessment order.

The Court rejected the assessee's contention, emphasizing that the Deputy Commissioner's powers under section 32 of the Act are described as "special powers" and empower him to call for and examine any assessment order, as well as make necessary enquiries and pass appropriate orders. The Court noted that the section does not impose any limitations on the Deputy Commissioner's power, except that the order passed must comply with the Act's provisions. The legislature did not restrict the Deputy Commissioner to only examining the order proposed for revision; he could consider information from external sources to rectify errors in the assessment, whether commission or omission.

The Court highlighted that while errors of commission in an assessment order could be identified by examining the text of the order, errors of omission, such as omitting taxable turnover, may require information from sources beyond the assessment order. The Deputy Commissioner's ability to revise an order based on extraneous material was deemed essential for rectifying incomplete assessments. The Court clarified that section 32 does not mandate a meaningless examination of the assessing authority's order but requires a purposeful review for the purpose of revision.

Ultimately, the Court rejected the assessee's contentions, affirming the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the revision. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the State Government counsel's fee. Additionally, the Court denied the oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, deeming the case not of significant public importance warranting Supreme Court deliberation.