9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited company having its head office in Bangalore and branch office in Guwahati. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods. In course of its business, electrical goods are brought to the branch office in Guwahati on the basis of stock transfers from the head office in Bangalore and such goods are sold within the State of Assam. For the assessment year 1995-96 the petitionercompany submitted its return under the provisions of the Act. In the said return the petitioner-company showed receipt of goods of the value of Rs. 1,34,41,499.89 including the opening stock as well as the closing stock of Rs. 22,49,928.41. However, in the return filed, the petitioner showed sales of a total amount of Rs. 1,12,39,927.11. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by affirming the order of the revisional authority, the instant writ petition has been filed. Before proceeding to notice the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner in support of the challenge made, this court would like to take note of the materials available to the revisional authority as well as the appellate authority, on due consideration of which the orders impugned in the present writ petition have been passed by the aforesaid two authorities. The first relevant document which was available is a letter of the petitioner-company dated September 24, 1998 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes wherein it was mentioned that the stock transfer price of the petitioner is higher than the selling price due to trade and cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction rather than a mere mistake in the assessment order. Unless the error committed is a jurisdictional error, according to the learned counsel, the power of suo motu revision will not be available. In this regard reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes reported in [1990] 79 STC 10. Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that under the provisions of the Act, in respect of an assessment made by the primary authority, different corrective powers have been conferred on the higher authorities. Each specie of such corrective power is capable of being exercised in a particular given situation as contemplated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the present case the assessing officer, while passing the initial order of assessment, had clearly ignored the materials available in the return filed by the petitioner as regards the total value of the stock of the petitioner which was disposed of during the relevant assessment year. If the assessing officer had taken into account the aforesaid value of the stock while determining the value of the sales effected, he would have had to make a proper investigation as to how as against a higher stock value a lower sales value could have been reflected in the return filed. This was not done. That apart, Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the Revenue, has argued that the assessing officer had given absolutely no reason or indication as to why h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are clear instances of jurisdictional error, there may be a category of cases where the assessing officer though vested with the jurisdiction may have exercised it wholly illegally or in an apparently irregular manner. Exercise of jurisdiction vested by law in an illegal manner or with material irregularity, evident on the face of the record, would be less apparent but acceptable instances of jurisdictional errors. It cannot be understood that the law would countenance a situation where if the officer is empowered and authorised to pass an order, the manner of exercise of such powers can never give rise to a jurisdictional error. In the present case, the learned Appellate Board has clearly recorded that in the monthly sale bills of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise of jurisdiction in a grossly irregular manner. Such gross irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction will undoubtedly give rise to a jurisdictional error and, therefore, occasion an erroneous order within the meaning of section 36 of the Act. In the present case it has already been noticed that the different facets of the fact-finding enquiry that should have been looked into by the assessing officer were by-passed and ignored. If in such circumstances the suo motu revisional power was exercised on the ground that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the court cannot find any fault with such an exercise. Insofar as the assessment being prejudicial to the Revenue is concerned, what the court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
