9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls inside and outside Madras State of cotton purchased by them from outside dealers during the inter-State movement of the cotton. This turnover of Rs. 72,36,997.30 is divided into two heads: (1) sales turnover to mills inside the State when the goods are on the inter-State journey for the period from 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1958 = Rs. 66,88,723.44; (2) sales turnover to mills inside and outside the State when the goods are on their inter-State journey from 1st October, 1958, to 31st March, 1959 = Rs. 5,48,273.86. In respect of these transactions the sales were effected by transfer of documents during the inter-State journey of goods. The assessees (petitioners) received the sale value of the goods from the buyers and made necessary endorsements for transfer of documents of title to the goods and these activities were carried on in Madras State when the goods were on their inter-State journey. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his power under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, issued a notice on 9th October, 1964, proposing to revise the assessment and determine the taxable turnover by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w taken by this court in Hasheeb Co. v. State of Madras[1966] 17 S.T.C. 38. in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Kumar v. Income-tax Commissioner[1959] 35 I.T.R. 1 (S.C.). and Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar[1959] 37 I.T.R. 388 (S.C.). Taking this position as a jumping pad, the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to jump to the conclusion that when the Deputy Commissioner exercised his power under section 32 in respect of a turnover which could be termed as a turnover which has escaped assessment to tax, he was exercising the powers of an original authority and, therefore, all the limitations placed under section 16 would attach to his exercise of jurisdiction. The relative scope of sections 16 and 32 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Hasheeb Co. v. State of Madras[1966] 17 S.T.C. 38., and it was held therein: "If section 32 is construed in this background we are clearly of the opinion that the power of revision of the Deputy Commissioner is a separate and independent power which can be exercised whenever he is of the opinion that the original assessing authority has committed any error of law or fact. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing authority after examining the order passed or the proceedings recorded. It may also be noted that an order under section 16(1) and (2) itself could be revised under section 32 by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners then relied on the decision in Velayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.)[1970] 26 S.T.C 176. In order to understand the ratio of that judgment, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts of that case. The dealer was assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 in respect of his turnover of oil engines and electric goods under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, by an order dated 30th November, 1959. On the basis of certain anamath accounts recovered during the surprise inspection, the assessing authority himself invoked his power under section 16(1) and, after following the prescribed procedure, redetermined the turnover, estimated the escaped turnover at Rs. 11,052 and made a revised assessment on 18th July, 1962, by adding Rs. 11,052. It is not necessary to note the other additions made in section 16(1) proceedings. The assessee preferred an appeal against this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms: "Whatever may be said of the other sections referred to in section 34 the orders passed thereunder and which are susceptible to the special powers of the Board under section 34, we are primarily concerned in this tax case with an order passed by the assessing authority under section 16(1) of the Act." In that context, the Bench held that if an order made under section 16(1) is sought to be revised under section 34 since section 34 is made subject to the provisions of the Act, the same limitations which the assessing authority has when exercising the power under section 16 will also be applicable to the exercise of the power by the Board in revision. It was further held that since the assessing authority himself could not have included the sum of Rs. 1,55,400 after the period of five years from the assessment year to which it related, the Board which was only revising the order of the assessing authority made under section 16 cannot also include that turnover beyond the period of five years referred to therein. This decision, therefore, does not lend support to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The next point that was urged by the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
