9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable turnover and he has no power to modify the order of the assessing authority and himself refix the turnover. For appreciating the said contention it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts as also the relevant statutory provisions. The assessees in this case are tanners and dealers in hides and skins and tanning materials. The assessee-company returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,32,999 for the assessment year 1975-76 in their form A-2 return. However, the correct total turnover as per the books of account was found by the assessing authority to be Rs. 29,59,354.90. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of turnover of Rs. 4,72,115.44, being the turnover of local purchases of raw hides which were later tanned and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efix the turnover. In that view the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge before us. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in Rajagopala Naicker v. Government of Pondicherry [1977] 40 STC 228 that the revising authority may either restore the order of the assessing authority or may set aside the order of the assessing authority and direct the assessing authority to revise the turnover. The learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal's decision is contrary to the decisions in State of Kerala v. Cheria Abdulla and Co. [1965] 16 STC 875 (SC), East India Corporation Ltd., Madurai v. State of Madra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a worse position than he would have been if he had not filed an appeal against the assessment order. The position before us is different. In this case, the assessing authority has given an exemption in respect of the turnover disclosed which, according to the revisional authority, is erroneous, and therefore, he has disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee. Therefore, in this case, there is no question of a fresh determination of the taxable turnover and there is only a disallowance of the exemption claimed by the assessee and granted by the assessing authority wrongly. Therefore the decision in Rajagopala Naicker v. Government of Pondicherry [1977] 40 STC 228 cannot help the assessee in this case. The other decisions referred to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken the view that the said expression includes all the powers except possibly the power of enhancement. Therefore, both before and after the amendment of section 32, the Deputy Commissioner acting under that section had all the powers except the power of enhancement. The power to pass "such order as he thinks fit" will take in the widest possible power excluding the power of enhancement which has to be conferred expressly by the statute. We are therefore of the view that the expression "pass such order as he thinks fit" will include a power to modify the order of the subordinate authority by refixing the taxable turnover as a result of the cancellation of the exemption granted by the assessing authority. In the decision in East India Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
