Dr. B. P. Saraf, J. —

These 8 writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and as such they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The main question for determination in these cases relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Commissioner to exercise suo motu power of revision under sub-section (I) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The facts of these cases lie in a narrow compass. To avoid repetition, facts of Civil Rule No. 182/82 only are being stated.

The petitioner, who is a dealer carrying on business of manufacture, sale and supply of bricks etc. was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala under section 9 (3) of the Act after examining his books of account etc. The periods involved were periods ending 31.3.77, 31.3,78 and 31.3.79. While making the assessments the Superintendent of Taxes considered the sale figure of taxable and non-taxable goods disclosed by the petitioner and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case determined the turnover of the petitioner and completed the assessment. That was done on 19. 5. 81 by three different orders. After completion of assessment, the petitioner received a notice issued by the Commissioner of Taxes informing that he had called for the records of the assessments of. petitioner for the 3 years stated above and on perusal of the same he was of the opinion that the same had been hurried and super­ficial and therefore in the interest of revenue and in exercise of the powers under section 2i of the Act he wanted to re-examine the books of account for the said periods. By the said notice the .petitioner was asked to show cause why the orders of the Superintendent of Taxes should not be modified. He was also directed to produce all records relating to production, sale, payment of wages and other evidence he wished to adduce in support of his contention in respect of those assessments. The aforesaid notice is set out below :

"Revision Case No, 89/82/130-131 (SDR/ST/813 (B)/76) Commissioner of Taxes vs. M/s Priyavart Dewan Singh

I called for the records of assessment of M/s Priyavart Dewan Singh TST No. SDR/ST/813 (B)/76 for the period 1976 77, 1977-78, 1978 79 ending on 31st March, 1979 to satisfy myself on the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala.

2. I have perused the orders of the Superintendent of Taxes, The Superintendent of Taxes was satisfied with the books of accounts of the dealer for these years and hat accepted the turnover estimated by the dealer.

3. The Superintendent of Taxes has not elaborated on the books that bad been examined and the basis of his satisfaction. I would have expected the Superintendent of Taxes to mention the reconciliation that had been obtained after a scrutiny of records relating to payment of wages, consumption of fuel, production of bricks and sale of bricks. This was particularly necessary because the dealer had not filed any return for the year 1978-79. In the absence of this valuable information, I am of the opinion that the assessment has been hurried and superficial.

4. Therefore, in the interest of the revenue of the State and in exercise of powers vested under section 21 of TST Act, 1976, I would like to re-examine the books of accounts of the dealer for the period from 1976-77 to J978-79 ending on 31st March, 1979.

5. M/s Priyavart Dewan Singh is hereby required to show cause as to why orders of the Superintend eat of Taxes dated 27. 5. 1981 in respect of assessment years 1976-77,1977-78 and 1978-79 ending on 31st March, 1979 should not be modified. He is also directed to appear before the undersigned on 3. 7. 82 at 11-00 hours with all records relating to production, sale> payment of wages and any other evidence he wishes to adduce in support of his contention in respect of this assessment,

S/d-Sukumar N. Oommen Commissioner of Taxes."

The petitioner applied for time by fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document