9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover for the periods ending September 30, 1982, September 30, 1984, September 30, 1986, March 31, 1987 and September 30, 1987 under the aforesaid Act of 1956 showing therein the gross turnover of onions it deals with as per books of account maintained at Rs. 27,217, Rs. 50,144, Rs. 76,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 4,83,000, respectively. The petitioner paid the admitted taxes due as per the said returns at the rate of seven per cent on taxable sales of onion as specified under item No. 56 of the Schedule attached to the Act. Respondent No. 2 upon examination and verification of the same, completed the assessment under section 9(3) of the Act by his orders of assessment dated October 6, 1982, June 22, 1986, March 17, 1987, February 15, 1988 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional demand on account of tax. Penal interest was also charged in respect of the additional demand of tax as a consequence of which the petitioner was required to deposit the additional demand of tax at Rs. 41,654 and interest at Rs. 35,922 for the above return periods as per notice of demand issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Taxes against the revised orders of assessment along with the petitions for stay of the disputed demand till disposal of the revision petitions. The revision petitions were rejected by a common order dated June 11, 1997 holding the same to be not maintainable against the revisional orders passed as delegated by and on behalf of the Commissioner of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am [2003] 133 STC 300 (Gauhati); [1998] 2 GLR 474. (4) Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [1990] 79 STC 10 (Gauhati); [1990] 1 GLR 449. (5) Santlal Mehendi Ratta v. Commissioner of Taxes [1992] 1 GLR 197 (Gauhati). (6) Victor Cane Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [2002] 125 STC 483 (Gauhati); [2002] 2 GLR 69. (7) Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. State of Assam [2003] 131 STC 70 (Gauhati); [2003] 1 GLR 448. (8) Herbertsons Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [2003] 132 STC 597 (Gauhati); [2003] 3 GLR 214. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned State Counsel on the other hand made submissions supporting the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order is within the competence and jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law or having been passed in haste without any enquiry. A wrong order passed cannot be said to be erroneous. In absence of any jurisdictional error on the part of the assessing authority, it will not be open for the revisional authority to reopen an assessment already made exercising its suo motu power of revision which would naturally lead to confusion, chaos and uncertainty. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or at the behest of some other authority other than on own application of mind of the revisional authority. The power is not available merely because in the opinion of the revisional authority it is of the view that the order is incorrect or that a higher quantum of tax or penalty should have been levied. The admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to how the earlier assessment made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue re-determined the sale price on the above grounds of a bit low , under-assessed , etc., without elaborating and discussing anything as to how it was so. It also relied upon the report of the Inspector towards reassessment of the sale price. The revisional authority fell into error in relying upon the report of the Inspector in re-determining the sale price, in absence of any authentic material regarding sale price on the date of assessment. It ought not to have acted only on the basis of the report of the Inspector. It was required to act on materials available on records. It could not have acted on conjectures and surmises. In absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty fell into error in acting on that basis and manner. As noticed above, the revisional authority was solely guided by the report of the Inspector to arrive at a particular sale price which in my considered opinion cannot be legally sustained. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order dated November 27, 1990 (annexure II) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaon Zone, Nagaon exercising suo motu power of revision for the period ending September 30, 1982 to September 30, 1987 under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 in respect of the petitioner cannot be sustained and con\sequently orders of reassessment on that basis dated April 4, 1991 (annexure III) are also not sustainable. Accordingly, the same are set aside and q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
