1996 (2) TMI 481 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Taxes.
3. Applicability of the old Act (Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956) and the new Act (Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993).
4. Requirement of reasoned orders in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993:
The petitioner challenged the order dated May 23, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, under Section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Taxes exercised suo motu revisional powers to quash the appellate orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) and restore the original assessment orders. The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) was not an officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the new Act to assist the Commissioner for the collection of revenue.

2. Validity of the Order Passed by the Commissioner of Taxes:
The petitioner argued that the order passed by the Commissioner was cryptic and lacked reasoning, thus failing to qualify as a quasi-judicial order. The court found that the impugned order was indeed cryptic and passed without any reasons, which is not sustainable in judicial review. The Commissioner, while exercising quasi-judicial powers, must provide reasons in support of the order.

3. Applicability of the Old Act and the New Act:
The court examined whether the proceedings should be governed by the old Act (Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956) or the new Act (Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993). The Commissioner issued the suo motu revisional notice under the old Act, but the order was passed under the new Act. The court noted that the proceeding was initiated under the old Act and is saved by the new Act. The Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the revisional order under the old Act, as the power of revision was not restricted by the pendency of an appeal under section 19 of the old Act.

4. Requirement of Reasoned Orders in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings:
The court emphasized the necessity for reasoned orders in quasi-judicial proceedings. The impugned order by the Commissioner was quashed on the ground that it was cryptic and lacked reasoning. The court directed the Commissioner to pass an appropriate reasoned order after giving a hearing to the parties within three months.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order dated May 23, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes due to its cryptic nature and lack of reasoning. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity for hearing to the parties. The writ application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.