1987 (2) TMI 489 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75.
2. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority to pass the impugned order dated 12th September, 1986.
3. Interpretation of provisions of section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act and section 48(6) in relation to the assessment order.
4. Application of section 48(6) for review of an earlier assessment order.
5. Consideration of the powers under section 48(6) in the absence of a period of limitation.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75, where the turnover of the petitioner was sought to be taxed. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority exceeded jurisdiction by passing the impugned order on 12th September, 1986, treating it as a remand case.

Issue 2: The High Court noted that the assessing authority had assumed jurisdiction where it had none. The contention was that the original assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act had become final on 10th April, 1978, and thus, the impugned order dated 12th September, 1986, could not be passed as a remand case. The respondents argued that the assessing authority had jurisdiction under section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act or section 48(6) to pass the impugned order.

Issue 3: The Court clarified that proceedings under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act are independent of each other, with separate assessment orders to be passed. The assessing authority could have revised the order under the Central Sales Tax Act within five years of the original assessment order, as provided under section 46, but this was not done within the prescribed time limit.

Issue 4: The Court analyzed the application of section 48(6) for review of an earlier assessment order. It was observed that the power of review under this section is distinct from rectification or revision powers, and can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the order. In this case, no such error was found to exist, rendering the use of section 48(6) inapplicable.

Issue 5: The Court discussed the powers under section 48(6) and the absence of a specified period of limitation for exercising these powers. While differing views were presented on the limitation period, the Court did not delve into this aspect, proceeding on the assumption that there was no period of limitation specified under section 48(6).

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the assessment order dated 12th September, 1986, due to the assessing authority's lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with the provisions of the relevant tax Acts. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and limitations in tax assessments.