2016 (8) TMI 24 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revision assessment - powers under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax - Held that - The mere consent of the counsel for the revisionist to produce the relevant books of accounts would clearly not confer the Deputy Commissioner with jurisdiction or authority to reopen or reassess the order of assessment bearing in mind the fact that he was exercising powers of revision. - order set aside - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
2. Correctness of the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Interpretation of the relief sought by the revisionist in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The revisionist, engaged in steel casting, was assessed, and the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice for revising the assessment order. Section 10-B confers revisional powers upon the Deputy Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of subordinate orders. The final order by the Deputy Commissioner directed a reassessment, which was appealed to the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in the High Court. The Court noted that the Tribunal incorrectly limited the revisionist's challenge to the remand order only. Despite finding no grounds for Section 10-B intervention, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Court deemed this course of action as misconceived, emphasizing that revisional powers should be based on existing record materials.

3. The interpretation of the relief sought by the revisionist in the appeal was crucial. While the Tribunal believed the challenge was solely against the remand, the revisionist sought to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and reinstate the assessing authority's decision. The Court found the Tribunal's remand unjustified, as the Deputy Commissioner did not establish any illegality or impropriety in the assessing authority's order, rendering the remand unnecessary.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the orders of both the Tribunal and the revisional authority. The Court emphasized that the mere agreement to produce accounts did not grant the Deputy Commissioner the authority to reassess under revisional powers. The judgment clarifies the limits of revisional jurisdiction and the importance of basing decisions on the existing record.