1993 (2) TMI 283 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim concessional rate of tax for sales to registered dealers.
2. Rejection of revised return by the Tribunal.
3. Competency to entertain additional claim beyond the scope of remand order.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the assessee's claim for a concessional rate of tax on sales to registered dealers during the assessment period. The claim was disallowed by the assessing authority, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the delay in filing supporting "C" forms was due to the purchasing dealers' failure. The Tribunal partially allowed the revisions and remanded the cases for re-examining the claims. However, when the assessing officer examined the claims pursuant to the remand order, the assessee filed an additional claim beyond the scope of the remand order. The Tribunal rejected the additional claim, leading to the reconsideration of the matter by the High Court.

Issue 2:
The assessee contended that once a case is remanded to the assessing officer, it is the officer's duty to entertain a revised return and consider all claims made before him, regardless of the remand order's scope. The counsel relied on various decisions to support this argument. However, the Advocate-General cited a decision stating that if the appellate authority restricts the inquiry to a specific area, the assessing officer cannot redetermine the entire turnover of the assessee.

Issue 3:
The High Court analyzed Section 14(2) of the Act and Rule 9(2)(a) of the Bihar Rules, which allow for revised returns and submission of declarations before final assessment. The court noted that the assessing authority's jurisdiction is broad when dealing with assessment proceedings, either through reassessment or open remand. However, in this case, the assessing officer exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by the limited remand order. Citing relevant case law, the court held that the officer could not enlarge his jurisdiction beyond the specified scope of the remand order.

In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee and imposing costs. The judgment was agreed upon by both Justices Gopichand Bharuka and Aftab Alam, with the reference being answered in the affirmative.