9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said company deals in paper containers which are sold mainly to bulk consumers majority of whom are registered dealers under the said Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The petitioner contends that for the assessment year 1st August, 1961, to 31st July, 1962, the petitioner's sale figures were as follows: Gross turnover ... Rs. 4,07,167.37 (including sales tax realised ... Rs. 4,094.60) Taxable turnover ... Rs. 1,00,990.00 Tax payable ... Rs. 5,049.50 Tax paid ... Rs. 5,125.25 The petitioner-company has also contended that for the previous years the assessments were made on the basis of bills prepared by the Calcutta office supported by the balance sheet and profit and loss of the company. For the assessment year 1961-62, 6th April, 1965, was fixed for hearing the assessment case and like previous years the company produced the bills prepared by the Calcutta office and the profit and loss account and balance sheet showing a gross sale as Rs. 4,02,067.67. It is the case of the petitioner-company that the representative of the petitioner-company had explained before the Commercial Tax Officer that the discrepancy between the return figures and profit and loss figure wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, to revise the said ex parte order was improper and had resulted in gross failure of justice to the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company has also contended that the application made by the petitioner-company before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not properly appreciated and although the said application was made for initiating a suo motu proceeding by the Assistant Commissioner to revise the ex parte assessment order, the said Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes treated the said application as a revisional application made by the petitionercompany and he rejected the said application on the footing that the same was time-barred. It appears that at the hearing of the said Civil Rule No. 5064(W) of 1969, the petitioner-company contended that the application made by the petitionercompany before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was only a request made to him for exercising his power of revision suo motu and the time for such suo motu revision was four years from the date of the assessment. As admittedly 4 years had not expired from the date of the assessment order, respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te cases. Hence the revising authority is vested with power of revision suo motu in order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order. Once such power is invoked, the jurisdiction exercised by way of suo motu revision is not cribbed and cabined or confined by conditions and qualifications. The learned Judge in this connection referred to the decision made in the cases of East Asiatic Co. (India) Ltd. v. State of Madras reported in [1956] 7 STC 299 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. J. Papaiah reported in [1972] 29 STC 279. The learned Judge did not accept the contentions on behalf of the respondents, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commercial Tax Officer, that a party aggrieved cannot move the appropriate authority for exercise of the revisional power suo motu. It has been held by the learned judge that such contention is inconsistent with the principle and purpose for which such plenary power of suo motu revision is entrusted with the revising authorities. If the revising authority finds that the case is a fit one for exercising revisional jurisdiction, the revisional power can be exercised and it is open to the assessee and also to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the subordinate authority but the aggrieved party can challenge the propriety of such incorrect order in an appeal provided for in the Act and the Rules. But the revisional authority can exercise its power of revision suo motu even if there is a provision of appeal but the aggrieved party had not preferred any appeal. It has been contended by Mr. Pal that if on the basis of an application the revisional jurisdiction of an authority is set in motion it cannot be said that such revisional power has been set to motion suo motu by the revising authority. Exercise of power at the instance of an aggrieved party runs counter to the exercise of suo motu power of revision. The learned counsel has, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in proceeding on the footing that suo motu power can be initiated at the instance of an aggrieved party and the period of limitation for making an application for revision will not be applicable if the aggrieved party by an application requests the revisional authority to exercise its suo motu powers. In our view, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is quite justified. It has already been indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
