1970 (7) TMI 81 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the enhancement of turnover by the Additional Judge (Revisions) amounts to an assessment within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and attracts the bar of limitation?
2. Whether the Additional Judge (Revisions) had jurisdiction to enhance the turnover determined by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial)?
3. Whether the estimate of turnover made by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The applicant contended that the enhancement of turnover by the Additional Judge (Revisions) should be considered an assessment within the Sales Tax Act, triggering the bar of limitation. However, the court noted that this argument was not raised during the revision proceedings. It was emphasized that for a question to be considered arising out of the revising authority's order, it must be raised before the authority or decided by them. Since the applicant did not raise this issue during the revision process, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to a reference on this point.

Issue 2:
Regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Judge (Revisions) to enhance the turnover determined by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the court clarified that the Additional Judge did not enhance the turnover but rather determined it at a different figure. The court explained that the question of enhancement would have arisen if the turnover was increased beyond the Sales Tax Officer's determination. Since the turnover was not enhanced beyond the initial assessment, the court concluded that no reference was necessary on this issue.

Issue 3:
The court addressed the applicant's argument that the estimate of turnover by the Additional Judge (Revisions) was arbitrary and based on conjectures. The court compared the Assistant Commissioner's reasoning for reducing the turnover with the Additional Judge's decision to rely on the turnover of the preceding year. It was noted that using the previous year's turnover as a basis is a common practice unless there is a departure from the norm. Since the turnover of the preceding year was also determined considering similar factors, the court found no legal question arising from this issue and dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the reference applications, emphasizing that the questions raised did not warrant a reference as they were not raised or decided during the revision proceedings. Costs were awarded to the respondent, and the counsel's fee was assessed accordingly.