9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order dated February 29, 1968 passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, "the Tribunal") in the case of Allied Rubber and Plastic Industries v. State of Punjab and held that rubber transmission belting is covered by item 30-B of Schedule B to the State Act. Similar exemption was granted to the petitioner for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. 3.. In relation to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, the revisional authority issued notices dated June 11, 1975 to the petitioner under section 21(1) of the State Act proposing suo motu revision of the assessment in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 118 of 1971-Brij Cycle Works, Kotkapura v. State of Punjab decided on January 8, 1973 in which it was held that rubber transmission belting is not covered by item 30-B of Schedule "B" to the State Act and was not entitled to exemption. In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, notice dated March 12, 1976, was issued by the revisional authority proposing suo motu revision of the assessment under the State Act. Separate notices dated June 11, 1975 were issued to the petitioner proposing revision of the assessment made under the Central Act in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the judgment of the Tribunal in Brij Cycle Works v. State of Punjab (Appeal No. 118 of 1971 decided on January 8, 1973) will be deemed to have been approved by this Court in Laxmi Machinery Store v. State of Punjab [1977] 39 STC 87 and, therefore, the revisional authority did not exceed its jurisdiction under section 21(1) of the State Act. She also relied on the judgments of the single Bench in Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries v. State of Punjab [1982] 50 STC 383 (P H) and of the division Bench in Luthra Rubber Industries v. State of Punjab [1985] 59 STC 198 (P H) and argued that the proceedings initiated by the impugned notice cannot be declared as without jurisdiction. 7.. I have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments. Section 21(1) of the State Act lays down that the Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for the record of any proceedings which are pending before, or have been disposed of by any authority subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. Sub-section (2) of the section 21 lays down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernal audit pointed out that the Assessing Authority had wrongly granted exemption from tax of the sales of transmission rubber belting in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Laxmi Machinery Store v. State of Punjab [1977] 39 STC 87 (P H) which was rendered after about 7 years from the assessment year 1970-71. Thereupon the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers under section 21(1) of the Act issued notices to the assessee indicating his intention to reopen the assessment. The assessee filed a writ petition and contended that since information in the form of decision of the High Court was made available to the authority, section 11-A of the Act providing for reassessment would only be applicable because the word 'information' occurred only in that section and not in section 21 and also that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revising Authority had no jurisdiction to revise orders of the Assessing Authority since both had concurrent jurisdiction over the whole district: Held, (i) that only because the expression 'information' occurred in section 11-A of the Act and that word had been interpreted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity or any appellate authority in order to see whether the order passed is proper or legal. Similarly, he can call for the record of any proceedings pending before any Assessing Authority or appellate authority in order to determine the legality or propriety of the proceedings. But, before he decides to exercise this power, he must come to the conclusion that the order or the proceedings suffer from the vice of impropriety or illegality and for this conclusion he has to confine himself to the record which is called for by him and which was before the lower authority, as the lower authority can be presumed to have applied his mind only to that record. He cannot take into consideration any fresh material in order to come to this conclusion. After having come to that conclusion, he will be entitled to scrutinise the proceedings and the order passed in order to determine the correct turnover which should have been assessed to tax on the basis of that record. He cannot, however, bring to tax, in the purported exercise of revisional powers, any turnover which had not been disclosed to the Assessing Authority by the dealer or which was not discovered by him during the course of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned with was the legality of the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. He was not concerned with the question whether the exemption was rightly granted at the date when the assessing authority passed the order. He had to apply the law as it stood at the date when he chose to exercise his revisional authority and if, on that date, it was found that the correct law that was applicable was the one laid down by the Supreme Court, then it would be open to him to revise the assessment in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The Deputy Commissioner was therefore right in exercising his jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Act." 12.. In Hari Chand Rattan Chand Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Additional), Punjab [1969] 24 STC 258, a Full Bench of this Court examined the scope of sections 11-A and 21(1) of the State Act and held that there is no period of limitation prescribed in the State Act or the Rules framed thereunder within which the revising authority can exercise its power under section 21(1) nor can any such period of limitation be read as implicit on the basis of section 11-A of the State Act. 13.. By applying the ratio of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
