Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (10) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the rate of 9 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively, from the customers on the sale of electric motors. The assessing authority, like the assessees, treated the electric motors as electrical goods falling under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and levied sales tax at the rate of 9 per cent and 12 per cent on the sales turnover in respect of the electric motors. It transpires that the Board of Revenue clarified on 23rd March, 1978, that the electric motors were taxable at 5 per cent with effect from 3rd March, 1975 to 20th February, 1978 and at 6 per cent from 21st February, 1978 under item 81 of the First Schedule. The assessee wanted to take advantage of the clarification of the Board of Reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessing authority was directed to give effect to the order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also recorded a finding that since the assessee had collected taxes at 9 per cent under a bona fide impression, it was not a case for the levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, particularly when the mistake was mutual between the assessees and the department and the assessees had claimed that they had refunded the excess tax to the customers. Subsequently however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 9th July, 1980, issued an erratum and deleted the observation with regard to the levy of penalty, etc. in the last paragraph of the order dated 3rd July, 1980. The following direction was substituted: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under section 34 of the Act. It was also pleaded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had condoned the delay after giving cogent reasons, and that in view of the clarification issued by the Board of Revenue, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner particularly in view of the erratum issued on 9th July, 1980, did not require any interference on merits. The Joint Commissioner, however elaborately dealt with the powers under section 34 of the Act and rightly came to the conclusion that any order passed under section 31(3) in respect of an appeal is revisable in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under section 34 of the Act. The Joint Commissioner noticed that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osing of the revision in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision to have dealt with the objections raised by the assessees and also consider whether or not the discretion had been properly exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Commissioner did not advert to those aspects at all and only after recording a finding that the suo motu powers of revision could be exercised by him in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That is clearly erroneous and the order of the Joint Commissioner on that aspect cannot be sustained and we have to set it aside to the ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of the Joint Commissioner relating to the assessment year 1975-76. 7.. Coming now to the appeals relating to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner condoned the delay and decided the appeals on merits. For condoning the delay, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took note of the clarification issued by the Board of Revenue on 23rd March, 1978. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also considered that the position with regard to the correct entry under which electric motors would fall got clarified only in 1978, and therefore the assessees filed appeals in 1978 and there were sufficient causes to condone the delay. The discretion was thus, exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e extent indicated above. The assessing authority shall consider the matter in the light of the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the erratum order dated 9th July, 1980 and in the light of the observations made by us hereinabove. 8.. So far as the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 is concerned, the order of the assessing authority, which stood confirmed up to the Tribunal is not interfered with, and the order of the Joint Commissioner in respect of that assessment year is upheld. Hence Tax Case (Appeal) No. 80 of 1983 is dismissed. 9.. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals. T.C. No. 80 of 1983 dismissed. T.C. Nos. 79 and 81 of 1983 partly allowed. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates