SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N.Grover : J.C.Shah : V.Ramaswami
Deputy Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Tax And Sales Tax, Quilon
Versus
Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Company
Case No. : 803 , 804 of 1967
Date of Decision : 2/18/69
General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 – Rule 33 – General Sales Tax – Sections 15, 2, 24 – Mistake in computing assessable turnover – Respondent was assessed under General Sales Tax, 1125 for year 1958-59 by Assistant Sales Tax Officer, by his order – Subsequently Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, South Zone, issued a notice, to respondent under Section 15(l)(i) of Act proposing to revise assessment on ground that assessing authority had committed a mistake in computing assessable turnover to extent of Rs. 17,000.00. – In response to notice respondent submitted objections – His contention, inter alia, was that Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to proceed in matter under Section 15(l)(i) and he could proceed only under Rule 33 of General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. – It was also contended that for aforesaid reason proceedings proposed by Deputy Commissioner were barred by limitation under that rule. – Deputy Commissioner overruled these contentions and revised assessment by including an additional turnover of Rs, 17,994.00. – Respondent took matter in appeal to Sales Tax Appellate tribunal, Trivandrum, tribunal held that Rule 33 did not apply as it was not a case of escapement of turnover but it was a case of illegal and improper exemption having been granted by assessing authority to which Section 15(l)(i) of Act was applicable. – Respondent filed a tax revision petition before High court which was allowed by High court following a decision given by it in Ninan v. State ofKerala. – Held, Jurisdiction is quite distinct and separate from one created by Rule 33 which obviously has been framed under clause (f) of Section 24(2). – That rule enables assessing authority within prescribed period to determine to best of its judgment turnover of a "dealer" which has escaped assessment. – Section 15(1) is meant for interference when there is some illegality or impropriety or irregularity in order of assessing authority which has to be set right. – It can hardly be said to cover those cases in which turnover has escaped assessment. – As has been observed in State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty, in which similar provisions relating to Madras General Sales Tax Act came up for consideration, Deputy Commissioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction would be restricted to examination of record for determining whether order of assessment was according to law. – Rule which confers power to assess escaped turnover is normally to be exercised "on matters de hors the record of assessment proceedings" before assessing authority. – It has been pointed out that although substantive provisions of Act do not expressly deal with power and procedure for assessment of escaped turnover legislature has left It to be dealt with by statutory Rules. – Present case is covered by previous decision of this court – If escapement of turnover was a special matter such action should be taken within period provided by Rule – Appeals Allowed
A.N. GROVER, J.
(1) THESE two appeals by certificate from the judgment of the Kerala High court involve a common question of law and will stand disposed of by this jugdment.
(2) THE facts in C.A.. 804 of 1967 may alone be stated. The respondent was assessed under the General Sales Tax, 1125 (Act II of 1125) (State of Kerala), hereinafter called the "Act", for the year 1958-59 by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer,First Circle, Alleppey, by his order, dated 13/11/1959. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon issued a notice, dated 29/10/1963 to the respondent under Section 15(l)(i) of the Act proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority had committed a mistake in computing the assessable turnover to the extent of Rs. 17,000.00. In response to the notice the respondent submitted the objections on 2/11/1963. His contention, inter alia, was that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter under Section 15(l)(i) and he could proceed only under Rule 33 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. It was also contended that for the aforesaid reason the proceedings proposed by the Deputy Commissioner were barred by limitation under that rule. The Deputy Commissioner overruled these contentions and revised the assessment by including an additional turnover of Rs, 17,994.00. The respondent took the matter inappeal to the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal, Trivandrum, The tribunal held that Rule 33 did not apply as it was not a case of escapement of turnover but it was a case of illegal and improper exemption having been granted by the assessing authority to which Section 15(l)(i) of the Act was applicable. The respondent filed a tax revision petition before the High court which was allowed by the High court following a decision given by it in Ninan v. State ofKerala.
(3) IN order to decide the points which have been raised before us it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions and the Rules made under the Act. The definition of "assessing authority" and "Deputy Commissioner" is contained in Section 2, clauses (b) and (cc) respectively. "Turnover" is defined by clause (k) to mean "aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold by a dealer whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. . " Section 2-A gives the constitution and functions of the Appellate tribunal. Under Section 12 every dealer whose turnover is Rs. 10,000.00 or more in a year has to submit a return in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed to the assessing authority. The assessment has to be made by that authority. Section 14 provides for an appeal against the assessment made on a dealer. Every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority has been declared to be final subject to the provisions of S. 15 to 15-C. Section 15 of the Act provides for authorities competent to revise the orders. Ss. (1) of that section reads :
"15. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may(i) sou molu, or (ii) on application call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding, and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit :
PROVIDED that the Deputy Commissioner shall not revise any order or proceeding under this Ss. if
(A) where an appeal against the order or proceeding lies to the Appellate tribunal, the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or
(B) the order or proceeding has been made the subject of appeal to the Appellate tribunal."
The Board of Revenue has also been given similar powers and ran revise suo motu or otherwise any order passed or proceeding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner under Ss. (1). It is unnecessary to refer to the proviso to Ss.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.