1992 (3) TMI 335 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a new plea could be raised before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal for the first time?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no assessment could be made under section 10 of the Act in the present case?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment for the period April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Tribunal accepted the plea that since the assessee had not filed the return, the assessment should have been framed under section 12 of the Act, thereby quashing the assessment order made under section 10(1)(b).

2. The court referred to the amendment in 1967 regarding the assessment provisions under section 10(1)(b) of the Act. It cited the case of Arbind & Company v. State of Rajasthan, highlighting that non-submission of returns could be considered a case of escaped assessment. The court also referenced the Supreme Court case of Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare, emphasizing that the assessing authority could proceed under either section 10(1)(b) or section 12, even in cases of non-filed returns.

3. The court further discussed the jurisdictional aspect in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation, asserting that assessments could be made under both sections 10(1)(b) and 12. It disagreed with the Tribunal's view that assessment could only be done under section 12, holding the Tribunal's order as not in accordance with the law.

4. Regarding the issue of raising a new question before the Sales Tax Tribunal, the court referred to various legal precedents. It highlighted the case of State v. Mehboob Ali, emphasizing the Board of Revenue's discretion to pass orders based on new arguments. The court also cited the Supreme Court case of State of Orissa v. Babu Lal Chappolia, supporting the allowance of new grounds before appellate authorities.

5. The court discussed the broad powers of appellate authorities in considering new grounds, as seen in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. It emphasized that the right of the assessee to relief is not limited to the plea raised initially. The court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, highlighting the broad powers of appellate authorities in deciding matters before them.

6. In conclusion, the court held that the Sales Tax Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain new questions raised for the first time. It emphasized that the discretion to allow such grounds should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merit and decide accordingly after considering both parties.

7. The revision was partly allowed, and the petition was partly allowed, indicating a partial success for the petitioner in the case.