9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inspecting officer also found that the tickets issued to the spectators were not issued from the authenticated ticket books by the entertainment department. It is alleged that the tickets were issued to various persons from the ticket books bearing serial number, which were different from the ticket books authenticated by the department. 3.. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the assessing authority. In reply to show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating therein that the ticket books used on August 30, 1988 were from the ticket books used up to December 31, 1987 duly authenticated and were being used on that day because the current ticket books were lying in a locked cupboard and the keys were with the partner, who was out of station and also as new rates were not yet fixed and new ticket books bearing new rates were not got printed by that time. It is also alleged in the explanation submitted by the petitioner that a remark to this effect was duly noted by the booking clerk on the said series being used on that day. 4.. The aforesaid explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the assessing authority, therefore, he fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a situation. 7.. After service of notices upon the respondents, they filed a detailed return to the writ petition denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is clearly stated in the reply that the assessing authority has passed the assessment orders, annexures 1 to 5 after giving full opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, which was found to be unsatisfactory. It is also stated in the reply that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority in setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 2 and partly allowing the appeal, was perverse, therefore, aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority, annexure 6 to the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has preferred a revision petition under rule 29 of the Rules framed under the Act No. 24 of 1957, which has rightly been allowed after analytical discussion of the material available on record. According to the averments made in the reply, it is stated that the order, annexure 8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 is eminently just and proper and does not require interference of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t orders, annexures 1 to 5, passed by the assessing authority in the present case are rather worst judgment assessment. 13.. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents, refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order, annexure 8, passed by respondent No. 1 is eminently just and proper and it does not require any interference of this Court in exercise of equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14.. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced at the Bar and I propose to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner seriatim. 15.. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner requires interpretation of rule 29 framed under Act No. 24 of 1957 about the scope of revision. In order to discuss the jurisdictional point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be expedient to quote rule 29 of the said Rules as under: 29. Revision.-The Commissioner may of his own motion, or, on application made to him within one hundred and twenty days of the order, call for the record of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhance or annul the assessment or penalty and as such, has also ample power to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, if the revisional court is of the opinion that the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority is either perverse or erroneous or based on no evidence on record. 18.. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. 19.. In support of his first argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported decision in Haridit Singh s case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 309 of 1985 decided on November 24, 1994-Rajasthan High Court). The facts of that case are not applicable in the present case. A bare perusal of paragraph 11 of the said judgment, throws a flood of light that in that case, the learned single Judge found as a matter of fact that the reasons assigned by the appellate authority in that case were not perverse which called for interference by the revisional authority in its revisional jurisdiction. But in the present case, on close scrutiny of the order, annexure 8, passed by the revisional authority, it reveals that the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner, in which case, one may lead to a harmonious interpretation making of Act or Rule workable and any interpretation which is leading to absurdity, then court of law will prefer the first interpretation which make all the provisions of an Act or Rules workable instead of leading towards absurdity. 22.. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that it was not at all necessary to include sub-rule (8) of rule 27 under sub-rule (3) of rule 29 of the said Rules while including in the aforesaid rule, the provisions of subrules (2) to (6) of rule 27. 23.. It is urged before me that once in exercise of appellate powers under rule 27, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, reduced the assessment and penalty imposed upon the petitioner then before enhancing the assessment and penalty, the revisional court was under legal obligation to issue notice for enhancement of tax to the petitioner. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, his client cannot be taken by surprise. It is true that the revisional court cannot enhance the assessment tax and penalty in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction all of sudden without giving an opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing tickets from two series with the object of evading tax. The explanation that the different series was used because the rate were not fixed and new tickets were not got printed, is found by the revisional court neither logical nor worth credence. In the appellate order itself, it is admitted by the appellate authority that the ticket books, which were used up to August 29, 1988 were got authenticated. The appellate authority has failed to consider that those ticket books, which were got authenticated, were not exhausted and still tickets in those ticket books were left, which could meet the immediate requirement of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the basis given by the appellate authority that on the day of survey, no additional person was found, is not a proper explanation. As a matter of fact, the authentication with the object of prevention of tax evasion if non-use of authenticated tickets is leniently viewed, the object of prevention of tax evasion would be frustrated. The petitioner has also deliberately avoided to produce authenticated records which were authenticated by the assessing authority either before the assessing authority at the time of assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
