9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (10) TMI 611 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxChallenged the notice issued u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993 and Central Sales Tax Act 1956 for revision of assessment - HELD THAT - In the instant case what is evident from the impugned notice dated September 23 1993 is that the revisional authority has sought to revise the assessment initially made on the basis of certain additional information which it claims has subsequently come into its possession. If the information stated to be in possession of the revisional authority is correct what has happened is that turnover has escaped assessment. Section 18 of the Assam Act 1993 has contemplated a proceeding for determination of escaped turnover to make the same exigible to tax. The power to initiate a proceeding to determine escaped turnover is vested on the assessing officer and therefore recourse to the impugned notice and the power u/s 36(1) of the Act of 1993 on basis thereof cannot be held to be justified. The argument advanced on behalf of the State that the present challenge is premature has to be negatived inasmuch as submission to the jurisdiction of an authority would only be justified if the authority concerned is legally empowered to initiate and conduct the proceeding in question. As the revisional authority has been held to be not competent to issue the impugned notice this Court sees no justifiable ground to require the assessee to appear before the authority on the basis of the impugned notice which has already been held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Thus this writ petition is allowed and the notice dated September 23 1993 stands quashed. Writ petition allowed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to notice u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for revision of assessment. Summary: The petitioner challenged a notice dated September 23, 1993, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati Zone-C, u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, proposing a suo motu revision of the petitioner-firm's assessment for the periods ending March 31, 1992, and September 30, 1992. The petitioner contended that the notice was unlawfully issued and sought intervention by the Court. The assessments of the petitioner-company under the Central Sales Tax Act for the mentioned periods were initially completed under section 17(4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Subsequently, a notice was issued under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, proposing revision based on additional materials, leading to the current challenge. The petitioner's counsel argued that the revisional authority lacked the power to revise assessments made after proper scrutiny, emphasizing the need for jurisdictional errors to justify revision. The counsel cited a judgment to support the contention that mere errors in assessments do not warrant revision without jurisdictional errors. Additionally, it was argued that the revisional authority's attempt to revise assessments based on new materials exceeded its jurisdiction, as the power to reopen assessments lies with the assessing officer, not the revisional authority. The State's counsel countered these arguments, claiming the notice was justified based on available materials. The Court referred to previous judgments to establish that revisional powers must be exercised within jurisdictional limits and that the authority cannot revise assessments solely based on differing opinions. It emphasized that corrections to assessments should be made through appropriate statutory provisions, not suo motu revision. Regarding the notice issued, the Court found that the revisional authority's attempt to revise assessments based on new information indicated escaped turnover, a matter falling under section 18 of the Assam Act, 1993. As such, the notice and the authority's power under section 36(1) were deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of the notice. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the notice dated September 23, 1993 was quashed.
|
