1998 (11) TMI 640 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to deemed assessments under section 11E(1).
2. Validity of notices issued by respondent No. 3 in form IX under section 20(3)(a) of the 1941 Act.
3. Competence of respondent No. 3 to revise the order dated May 6, 1994 under section 20(3)(a).
4. Interpretation of the term "assessment" in the context of deemed assessments under section 11E(1).
5. Retroactive application of the Supreme Court judgment on sales tax liability of REP licences or exim scrips.
6. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 in reopening deemed assessments under section 11E(1).

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the applicability of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to deemed assessments under section 11E(1). The Tribunal held that the order passed under section 11E(2) is revisable under section 20(3)(a) and deemed assessments can be reopened under specific circumstances.

2. The validity of the notices issued by respondent No. 3 in form IX under section 20(3)(a) was challenged. The Tribunal ruled that the notices were valid and lawful, allowing the applicant to prefer objections or representations before respondent No. 3.

3. The competence of respondent No. 3 to revise the order dated May 6, 1994 under section 20(3)(a) was contested. The Tribunal clarified that respondent No. 3 had the authority to revise the order and issue notices for representations.

4. The interpretation of the term "assessment" in the context of deemed assessments under section 11E(1) was crucial. The Tribunal explained that deemed assessments are not revisable under section 20(3)(a) but orders passed under section 11E(2) can be revised if necessary.

5. The retroactive application of the Supreme Court judgment on sales tax liability of REP licences or exim scrips was discussed. The Tribunal stated that the decision had retrospective effect as it declared the law while it was already in existence.

6. The jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 in reopening deemed assessments under section 11E(1) was examined. The Tribunal concluded that respondent No. 3 could proceed with reopening assessments under specific legal provisions and issued directions for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the applications, affirming the validity of the notices issued by respondent No. 3 and providing guidance on the revision of orders and reopening of deemed assessments under the relevant legal framework.