1990 (9) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to set aside orders of assessing and appellate authorities.
2. Correct application of best judgment assessment.
3. Effect of modification of assessment order by appellate authority.
4. Scope of Commissioner's jurisdiction in suo motu revision.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a sales tax appeal challenging an order dated December 30, 1983, under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised suo motu revision powers, questioning the adequacy of cause shown in allowing an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The assessing authority had proposed an increase in the turnover returned by the appellant due to discrepancies in the accounts, including misclassification of goods and incorrect depiction of sales turnover. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal despite these discrepancies, leading to a full allowance of the appeal. The Commissioner, in revision, found the decision prejudicial to revenue and set aside both the assessing and appellate authorities' orders, which was deemed improper by the Court.

The Court clarified that once an assessment order is modified by the appellate authority, the original assessment order merges with the appellate order and loses independent existence. Therefore, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside the assessing authority's order that had merged with the appellate order. The Commissioner's role in suo motu revision should be limited to correcting errors by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the Commissioner's order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision based on the Court's observations.

Moreover, the Court noted that any fresh assessment made after the now-set-aside order was not valid. The only valid assessment order is the one resulting from the remand made by the Court. Until the Commissioner interferes with this order, subject to the pending revision, it remains the operative assessment order. The appeal was allowed to a certain extent, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's directives.