1982 (4) TMI 277 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the turnover subjected to tax at a concessional rate was covered by C form declarations?
- Whether the Appellate Tribunal had the power to enhance the assessment even if the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not consider it earlier?
- Whether the power of enhancement by the Tribunal is limited by any conditions?

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, regarding a turnover of Rs. 3,10,495.38 taxed at a concessional rate of 2 1/2 per cent for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessing authority did not receive C form declarations from the assessee covering that turnover. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not verify if the turnover was covered by C form declarations. The Tribunal rejected the State Government's enhancement petition, stating that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have addressed it first. However, the State Government contended that the Tribunal had the power to enhance the assessment, irrespective of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's actions. The Tribunal's authority to enhance the assessment was based on Section 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, allowing it to "confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment" in the case of an order of assessment.

The Court held that the power of the Tribunal to enhance an assessment is not restricted by any conditions. Section 36 does not impose limitations on the Tribunal's power to enhance the assessment during the appeal process. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's authority to enhance an assessment is not dependent on whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had previously considered the enhancement. The judgment cited the case law of Deputy Commissioner v. Panayappan Leather Industries [1981] 47 STC 88 to support the unrestricted power of the Tribunal to enhance assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to consider the enhancement petition on its merits and dispose of it in accordance with the law. The revision was allowed, and costs were awarded to the State Government.