9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (7) TMI 341 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues involved: The power of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes u/s 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act to revise assessments.
Summary: The judgment of the Karnataka High Court dealt with two petitions concerning the power of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes u/s 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The petitions involved assessments for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, where the Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessment directing the inclusion of certain expenses in the taxable turnover. The main issue raised was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to revise the assessment, which was challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the assessing authority u/s 12-A of the Act, stating that the turnover in question was not outside the assessment record. The Deputy Commissioner and the assessing authority were argued to have concurrent jurisdiction to revise such assessments based on different scenarios of turnover disclosure. The Court considered the relative jurisdictions of the Deputy Commissioner and the assessing authority u/s 21(2) and 12-A of the Act, citing Supreme Court decisions to highlight the limitations of revisional powers. It emphasized that the revising authority should not encroach upon the powers reserved for the assessing authority, especially in cases of escaped turnover assessment. The Court further analyzed the provisions of section 12-A of the Act, stating that if the assessing authority did not apply its mind to a part of the turnover, it must be deemed to have escaped assessment falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The judgment referenced previous decisions supporting this interpretation and concluded that the revising authority could not invoke powers u/s 21(2) if the assessing authority had not considered the disputed turnover. Ultimately, the Court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner, with no costs imposed in the circumstances.
|
