9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively by his order dated February 23, 1976. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) II, Madras and disputed several items including the item, viz., assessment made on the second sales turnover of iron and steel scrap bought locally and sold as such. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the turnover of Rs. 1,05,632 from the taxable turnover on that account exercising power however under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 2.. The Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Chepauk, Madras has held that the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and that the assessing officer had rightly taxed the said amount. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old the resultant timber and iron materials in bulk. The court in that case found that the intention of the sellers and buyers in the circumstances of the first sale of the components of Nissen huts and condemned articles could be taken to be to sell or buy condemned articles only for the purpose of acquiring the property in the old materials contained in those condemned articles and therefore what the assessee purchased in the auction was scrap and when he sold the scrap later he was only a second seller. The court indicated that the only question which could be asked in such cases is, whether the purchaser of such condemned articles could have entertained any idea of putting those articles to any further use. If he could not use them exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of those materials as movable property......" 5.. The Joint Commissioner evidently failed to appreciate the ratio of the judgment in the case of State of Madras v. Raman & Co. [1974] 33 STC 1 (Mad). The sale whether of movable or immovable property is a sale that there is no tax on the sale of a particular type of property because the property sold is not "goods" as defined under the Act will not change the character of the second sale of the components of that property for the purpose of tax. It shall be a second sale in the sense that if the sale of the components alone had been contemplated, the components when removed from their attachment were goods as indicated in the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madras v. Raman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question and answered. Our attention has been drawn to documents on the record showing that the auction was for demolition and removal of the building materials as per condition of sale. If that be so, there can be some sense in the assessee's contention that he had purchased the materials in the building and not anj immovable property. It is not known whether the first seller, that is to say, the owner of the buildings was liable to tax in the event of his selling the components of the buildings or not. 7.. In R.V.S. Textiles v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (T.C. No. 605 of 1981-order dated January 21, 1991*), this Court has said, "Coming to the main contention, we cannot but take notice of the scheme of the Act under which the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for and examine on its own motion an order passed by one of the authorities referred to therein and after making such enquiries or causing such enquiries to be made to pass such order thereon as it thought fit. But this power was/ is not intended to be exercised in a routine or casual manner but only on special occasions. Otherwise, there would/shall always be a chance of the suo motu power of revision being used to defeat the course of proceedings in appeal and in revision." 8.. In Avon Plastics v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 268, this Court has said: "Unless it is found in any particular case that this discretion was wrongly exercised, it would not be proper for the Board to interfere with the order of the Appellate Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there in the original assessment order to demonstrate before the Joint Commissioner that there may be infirmities in the appellate order rendering the appellate order bad, yet the assessment order also was/is not sustainable. We are of the opinion that unless it is acknowledged as a part of the role of the revisional authority to afford opportunity to the assessee to raise his objections/contentions to show that the assessment order is bad, there shall be a complete denial of a forum of appeal or revision to the assessee to question the validity of the assessment order on facts and in law. Unless such an opportunity is afforded to the assessee, it would be unjust and unfair, to deny to the assessee such opportunity before the revisional a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
