2007 (3) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to an order passed by the Assam Board of Revenue affirming the revisional order u/s 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, regarding the assessment of a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods for the assessment year 1995-96.

Assessment of Sales Turnover:
The petitioner company submitted its return showing sales of a total amount, but the assessing officer determined a different sale proceeds amount for the petitioner, leading to the levy of tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes initiated a proceeding under section 36 and set aside the assessment order on the ground of suppressed sales amount, which was later rectified. The Assam Board of Revenue rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, leading to the writ petition challenging the orders.

Legal Arguments - Petitioner's Counsel:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the jurisdiction u/s 36 can only be exercised if the assessing officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. They contended that the power must be invoked only if both pre-conditions are present, emphasizing that the error must be jurisdictional. They cited relevant case laws to support their arguments regarding the correct interpretation of the Act.

Legal Arguments - Revenue's Counsel:
The Revenue's counsel refuted the petitioner's contentions, stating that the assessing officer had ignored crucial information leading to an erroneous assessment. They argued that the assessing officer's failure to investigate discrepancies in stock and sales values constituted a jurisdictional error, making the order prejudicial to Revenue. They defended the revisional order and the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The court considered the arguments of both parties and emphasized that an erroneous order u/s 36 must involve a jurisdictional error. It highlighted that the assessing officer's failure to verify crucial facts and conduct necessary inquiries amounted to a gross irregularity, justifying the exercise of revisional power. The court concluded that the conditions for invoking powers u/s 36 were met in this case, upholding the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and the Assam Board of Revenue. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the revisional order and the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue, finding the writ petition without merit and dismissing it. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of jurisdictional errors in invoking revisional powers under the Act.