Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
ARAM KANAI JAMINI RANJAN PAL PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST BENGAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1976
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
GUPTA, A.C.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1545 1976 SCR 110
1976 SCC (3) 363
ACT:
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941-S. 20(3)-Scope of-
Additional Commissioner reassessed turnover taking into
consideration material not available to assessing authority
competent.
HEADNOTE:
Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act,
1941 provides that the Commissioner, Upon application or of
his own motion, may revise why assessment made or order
passed under the Act or the Rules thereunder by a person
appointed under s. 3 to assist him and the Board of revenue
may, in like manner, revise any order passed by the
Commissioner.
At the time of assessment of the appellant’s sales tax
return the Commercial Tax officer enhanced the gross
turnover and charged the enhanced amount to tax and in
addition imposed a penalty. On appeal under s. 20(1) of the
Act, the Assistant Commissioner reduced the enhancement of
gross turnover is as well as the penalty. The appellant
filed a revision application before the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes. Before the filing of revision application,
under orders of the Additional Commissioner an enquiry was
conducted by a Commercial Tax officer who detected numerous
discrepancies of a serious nature in the accounts. On the
basis of this report, the Additional Commissioner enhanced
the assessment by a huge sum and charged the entire enhanced
amount to tax. On further revision to the Board of Revenue,
the appellant contended that while exercising his power of
revision under s. 20(3) of the Act, the Commissioner had to
confine himself to an examination of the mate rial before
the assessing officer and could not take additional facts
into consideration which plea was rejected by the Board.
The High Court held that (1) under s. 20(3) the
Additional Commissioner as competent to reassess the gross
turnover by taking into consideration additional material
which had not been made available to the assessing officer
and (ii) the Additional Commissioner was vested with
authority under. s. 20(3) read with r. 80A to rely on the
report under s. 14(1) initiated long before the filing of
the revision petition.
Dismissing the appeal,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
^
HELD: The Commissioner or Additional Commissioner can.
in exercise of his revisional power, re-assess the turnover
and while doing so, rope in the escaped items of turnover
and thereby enhance the gross turnover [116G]
(1) The word "Revise", the dictionary meaning of which
is ’to re-examine, to review, to correct or to amend the
fault", is not hedged or. qualified by any condition or
limitation. The controlling expressions like "for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or
propriety of the order passed ed" or "regularity of flue
proceedings" which are susceptible of being construed as
restricting the revisional power to rectification of an
illegality or impropriety of the order or of’ irregularity
in the proceeding are also not be found therein There is
also nothing in the Bengal Sales Tax Rules. 1941 to cir
circumscribe or limit the power. It is not, therefore,
unreasonable to infer that the amplitude of the power
conferred on the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner
is more extensive than the power exercisable by the High
Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It can be
eerily equated with the power exercisable be the appellate
authority in an appeal under sub. . 2 of s. 20 of the Act.
[115F-H]
111
Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property Delhi
and Others A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 77: East Asiatic Co. (India)
Ltd. v. The State of Madras 7 S.T.C. 299, State of Kerala v.
K. M. Cheria Abdulla & Co. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 875, Swastik.
Oil Mills Ltd. v. H. B. Munshi Deputy Commissioner of Sales
Tax. Bombay [1968] 2 S.C.R. 492, State of Madras v. The
Madura Knitting Co Ltd. (1959) 10 S.T.C. 155, referred to.
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax and
Sales Tax , Quilon and Anr. v. Chanalakshmi Vilas Cashe
w Co. (1969) 24 S.T.C. 491, The State of Kerala v. M.
Appukutty (1963) 14 S.T.C. 242 and Commissioner. (of income.
tax, Bombay v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 I.T.R.
891, distinguished.
(2) on a combined reading of s. 20(3) and rule 80A of
the Rules it is immaterial whether the Commissioner proceeds
to make the enquiry before or after tho filing of a revision
petition so long he affords to the person likely to be
adversely affected by his action an opportunity of being
hearer [119 H]
In the instant case, the Commercial Tax officer called
upon to make on enquiry, gave adequate opportunity to the
appellant to explain the discrepancies And the suspicious
circumstances, relating to the alleged suppression bn of the
turnover and the Additional Commissioner gave notice to the
former and furnished him with a full copy of the report. It
cannot be said that the Commercial Tax officer and
Additional Commissioner committed any illegality or breach
of any statutory provision or rule or transgressed the
limits of their jurisdiction. 1120 A-C
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 669
and 670 of 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order
dated the 11th June, 1970 of the Calcutta High Court in
Sales Tax reference No. 395 of 1969.
S. T. Desai, H. S. Parihar and 1. N. Shroff, for the
Appellant. E
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General, Sukumar mar Basu and G.
5. Chatterjee for respondent in C.A. 669/71.
Leila Seth, Sukumar Basu, G. S. Chatterjee, for
Respondent in C.A. 670/71.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-These two appeals Nos. 669 and 670 of
1971 by special leave from the common judgment dated June
lt, 1970 of the High Court at Calcutta in Sales Tax
References Nos. 395 of 1965; and 521 of 1967 which raise
important questions as to the scope and extant of the
revisional power of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act;,
1941 (Act VI of 1941) (hereinafter referred to as the Act’),
and shall be disposed of by this judgment.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are: The
appellant which is a Private Limited Company, incorporated
under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is registered as a
dealer under the Act submitted a return for 4 quarters
ending with the last date of Chaitra, 1364 B.S.
(corresponding to the period commencing with April 14, 1957,
And ending with April 13, 1958) showing a gross turnover of
112
sales of Rs. 35,93,402/- By his order dated December 7,
1959, the Commercial Tax officer, Rajakatra Charge, rejected
the appellant’s books of accounts on the ground of absence
of purchase and sale vouchers and of stock statements and
enhanced the gross turnover shown by the appellant by Rs.
50,000/- and charged the entire enhanced amount to tax
subject to deduction under section 5(2)(be of the Act. He
also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under section 11(1) of
the Act. On appeal under section 20(1) of the Act, the
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Burrabazar Circle,
by his order dated September 10, 1960, reduced the
enhancement of gross turnover from Rs. 50,000/- lo Rs.
25,000/- and the penalty from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/-. Not
satisfied with this reduction, the appellant moved The
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, in revision
under section 20(3) of‘ the Act on November 10, 1960. I
before the filing of the said revision petition, the
Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, to whom power under
section 14(1) of the 11 Act has been duly delegated started
an enquiry on January 20, 1960 to the and served on the
appellant a notice dated October 25, 1960 to the following
effect:-
"You are hereby directed to furnish the
undersigned with the serial Nos. Of the cash memos
printed by you in 1363 B.S., 1364 B.S., 1365 B.S., 1366
B.S. and 1367 B.S. The names of the suppliers of these
memos relevant bills Nos. and dates, amount, dates of
payment and modes of l payment also are to be
indicated. I
The information may be supplied to the undersigned
on 31st October, 1960 at 4 p.m. positively."
In response to the notice, the appellant appeared
before the Commercial Tax Officer, who after hearing the
former and examining the cash memos and other material
submitted a report of the investigation made by him to the
Assistant Commissioner, Central Section observing inter alia
that two original cash memos issued by the appellant bearing
serial No. 30727-26 dated January 24 for Rs. 69.50 in
respect of sale of Banarsi Saree and No. 31310-37 dated
December 25, 1966 for Rs. 62.20 in respect of sale of ready-
made garments were not properly recorded in the appellant’s
books of accounts and records and that on reference to the
appellant’s books of accounts and cash memos, it had been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
found that cash memo No. 30727-26 was issued in respect of
mill-made cloth for Rs. 11.75 on August 18, 1964 and not in
respect of Banarsi saree for Rs. 69.50 an January 24 and
cash memo No. 31310-37 was issued in respect of sale of
mill-made cloth for Rs. 9.37 and not in respect of sale of
already-made garments for Rs. 62.20 on December 25, 1966. He
also observed in his report that in cash memo No. 31310-37,
the date appeared to have been tampered with by subsequent
insertion of the numerals "66" after the date of issue and
that the actual date appear ed to be December 25 and that
the appellant had not been able to furnish a satisfactory
explanation with regard to these discrepancies. The
Commercial Tax officer further stated in his report that his
investigation revealed that the appellant got duplicate sets
of 1,00,000
113
cash memos bearing serial Nos. 2850 to 29500 and 30501 to
31500 printed and supplied by M/s Blackwoods India Limited
and did not record sales to the extent of Rs. 30,00,000/-
which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary
appeared to be entirely taxable. This report was received by
the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, while the
aforesaid revision petition was still pending before him.
he, thereupon gave the following notice to the appellant:-
"on discovery of fresh materials, as reported by
the Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, in his
report dated 27-12-60 (copy enclosed), it appears that
you have suppressed sales "estimated to be Rs.
30,00,000 in respect of the assessment of four quarters
ending Chaitra 1364 B.S. The above revision petition
which has been filed before me is against the appellate
order in respect of the assessment for the said period.
It also appears that sales to the extent of Rs.
30,00,000 (estimated) escaped taxation from the
original assessment and consequently from the Assistant
Commissioner’s appellate order. The above revision
petition will be heard by me on 5-10-61 at 11.30 a.m.
and the report dated 27-12-60, submitted by the
Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, will be
considered at the time of hearing of the revision
petition. You should, therefore, appear before me on
that date at the hour fixed either in person or by a
duly instructed agent to represent your case, failing
which the matter will be decided ex-parte without any
further reference to you."
In reply to the notice, the appellant wrote back
denying that it had any transaction with M/s Blackwoods
India Ltd. in relation to the printing of the duplicate sets
of the cash memos in question and stating inter alia that on
the matter being referred to the later, they could not say
from whom actually, the order in question was received nor
could they give any relevant particulars. It was further
added by the appellant that the proposed enhancement of
gross and taxable sales by Rs. 30,00,000/- was unjustified
and unwarranted.
The Additional Commissioner disposed of the revision
petition be enhancing the assessment by Rs. 20,00,000/- as
against the admitted gross turnover of Rs. 35,93,402/- and
charged the entire enhanced amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to tax
subject to deduction under section 5 (2) (b) of the Act,
The appellant thereupon took the matter in further
revision to the Board of Revenue, West Bengal contending
that the conclusions arrived at by the Additional
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes were wholly unwarranted and
that while exercising his power of revision under section
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
20(3) of the Act, the Commissioner had to confine himself to
the examination of the material before the Assessing officer
and could not take additional facts into consideration. The
Board negatived both the contentions and rejected the
revision application. Thereupon the appellant made an
application to the Board under section 21(1) of the Act
requesting that the points of law arising
10-833SCI/76
114
from its decision be referred for decision to the High
Court. Although at the hearing of the application, the
appellant stressed that reference be made on three points,
the Board allowed the application in part and referred only
the following question of law for decision to the High
Court:-
Whether on the Facts and circumstances of the
case, in 5 exercise of his powers under section 20(3)
of the Bengal Financc (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the
Additional Commissioner was competent to reassess the
gross turnover of the petitioner by taking into
consideration additional material which had not been
made available to the assessing officer"
The appellant did not rest content with this limited
reference and made an application under sub-sections 2(b)
and (3) of section 21 of the Act to the High Court which
directed the Board to submit for its decision The following
further question of law:-
"Whether on the facts admitted or found by the
Tribunals below, the Additional Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes was vested with the authority or
jurisdiction, under sub-section (3) of section 20 of
the Bengal Financc (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with
rule 80A of the Rules framed thereunder to admit or
rely on the purported report, dated December 27, 1960,
of The Commercial Tax officer of the Central Section,
pursuant to the enquiry, under subsection (1) of
section 14 of the said Act, initiated long before The
filing of the revision petition in question by the
petitioner before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
West Bengal ?"
The Board thereupon referred the above quoted second
question of law as well to The High Court for its decision.
After hearing The appellant and the Revenue, the High
Court by its common judgment dated June 11, 1970 answered
both the aforesaid questions in the affirmative. Aggrieved
by this judgment of the High Court, the appellant applied
for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Desai has strenuously
urged that the revisional power of the Additional
Commissioner under section 20(3) of the Act was a limited
one and he was not competent to act as an original assessing
authority and reassess the gross turn over by taking into
consideration the additional material comprising fresh
sources of revenue which was not available to the Assessing
officer. He has further urged that the Additional
Commissioner, could not admit or rely on the report dated
December 27, 1960, of the Commercial Tax officer, Central
Section, based on the enquiry under section 14(1) of the Act
which was initiated long before The filing of The revision
application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes.
West Bengal.
115
Though both these contentions are inextricably linked
up, we shall deal with them separately. Turning to the first
contention, we wish to make it clear that the scope and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
ambit of the revisional jurisdiction varies from statute to
statute and it is difficult to make general observations in
regard thereto. For ascertaining the true scope, content and
ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner or
the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, of
Commercial Taxes under the Act, it is necessary to notice
section 20 thereof which in so far as is material for the
purpose of these appeals stood thus at the relevant time:-
"20(3). Subject to such rules as may be prescribed
and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the
Commissioner upon application or of his own motion may
revise any assess made or order passed under this Act
or the rules thereunder by a person appointed under
section 3 to assist him, and subject as aforesaid, the
Board of Revenue may, in like manner, revise any order
passed by the Commissioner :
Provided that before rejecting g any application
for the revision of any such order the Commissioner or
the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, shall
consider it and shall record reasons for such
rejection.:
Provided further that no application for revision
shall lie to the Commissioner in respect of any
assessment if an appeal lies under sub-section (1) to
the Commissioner in respect of such assessment
(5) Before any order is passed under this section
which is likely to affect any person adversely, such
person shall be given reasonable opportunity of being
heard."
The section as extracted above is very widely worded.
The word ’revise’ occurring therein (which in dictionary is
describe as meaning to ’reexamine, to review, to correct, or
to amend the fault’) is not hedged or qualified by any
condition or limitation. The controlling expressions like
’for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality
Or’ propriety of the order passed’ or ’regularity of the
proceeding’ which are susceptible of being construed as
restricting the reversional power to rectification of an
illegality or impropriety of the order or of irregularity in
the proceeding are also not to be found therein. There is
also nothing in the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941
(hereinafter called ’the Rules’) to circumscribe or limit
the power. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to infer that
the amplitude of the power conferred on the Commissioner or
the Additional Commissioner is more extensive than the power
exercisable by the High Court under section 115 OF the Code
of Civil Procedure. In fact, it can be easily equated with
the power exercisable by the appellate authority in an
appeal under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act. We
are fortified in this view by the following observations
made by this Court in Indira Sohanial v. custodian of
Evacuee Property Delhi and others(1).
(1) A T R. 1956 S. C. 77.
116
"Section 27 is very wide in its terms and it
cannot be construed as being subject to any limitation
such as filing of an appeal. Nor can the scope of
revisional powers be confined only to matters of
jurisdiction or illegal lithe, because under s. 27 the
Custodian General, can exercise revisional powers for
the purpose of satisfying himself as to "the legality
or propriety" of any order of the Custodian-
The following observations made by Ramaswami, J. in
East Asiatic Co. (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madras(1) are
also relevant :-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
"The purposes of this Act are two fold, viz., the
levy of a general tax on the sale of goods to
supplement the lost revenues and for promoting the
general public good; and secondly, to see that this is
done under the provisions of the Act and not by
carrying out in a capricious or arbitrary manner.
Therefore, a revisional authority has to be created.
What is revision ? The essence of revisional
jurisdiction lies in the duty of the superior tribunal
or officer entrusted with such jurisdiction to see that
the subordinate tribunals or officers keep themselves
within the bounds prescribed by law and that they do
what their duty requires them to do and that they do it
in a legal manner. This jurisdiction being one of
superintendent and correction in appropriate cases, it
is exercisable even suo motu as is clear from the
numerous statutory provisions relating to revision
found in various Acts and Regulations such as the Civil
Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Income Tax
Act, etc. The jurisdiction of suo motu revision is not
cribbed and cabined or confined by conditions and
qualifications. The purpose of such an amplitude being
given Suo motu revisions appears to be as much to
safeguard the interests of the exchequer as in the
interests of the assesses. The State can never be the
appellant and if there is an order against the State to
its prejudice, and naturally the assesses in whose
favour the order is passed does not prefer an appeal,
the State would suffer unless its interests are
safeguarded by the exercise of such supervisory
jurisdiction as the one given to the authorities above
mentioned."
Thus the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner
can, in exercise of his revisional power, re-assess the
turnover and while doing so rope in escaped items of
turnover and thereby enhance the gross turnover.
Having found that the power of revision exercisable by
the Com missioner, Commercial Taxes is not tramelled by any
limitation, let us now see whether the commissioner while
exercising the revisional power is confined to the order of
assessment and the record of pro-
T.C. 299
117
ceedings of the Assessing officer or can he travel outside
the same and re-assess the gross turnover by taking
additional material under consideration. The following
observations made in the majority judgment of this Court in
the State of Kerala v. K. M. Cheria Abdulla Co.(1) are
helpful in deciding this matter:-
"The words of section 12(2) of the Madras General
Sales Tax Act, 1939, that the Deputy Commissioner ’may
pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit’
means such order as may in the circumstances of the
case for rec rectifying the defect be regarded by him
as just. Power to pass such order as the revising
authority thinks fit may in some cases include power to
make or direct such further enquiry as the Deputy
Commissioner may find necessary for rectifying the
illegality or impropriety of the order, or irregularity
in the proceeding. It is therefore not right baldly to
propound that in passing an order in the exercise of
his revisional jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner
must in all cases be restricted to the record
maintained by the Officer subordinate to him, and can
never make enquiry outside that record. Therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
conferment of power under rule 14-A of the Madras
General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, to make further enquiry
in cases where after being satisfied about the
illegality or impropriety of the order or irregularity
in the proceeding, the revising authority thinks it
just for rectifying the defect to do so does not amount
to enlarging the jurisdiction conferred by section
12(2)."
It will also be apposite in this connection to refer to
the following operations made by the Madras High Court in
State of Madras v. The Madras Knitting Co. Ltd.(2)
"The powers given to the revising authority under
section 12(2) were not confined to errors patent on
the face of the record but would extend to probing
further into the records like calling for despatch
registers and other evidence."
It will also be useful in this connection to refer to
the decision of this Court in Swastik oil Mills Ltd. v. H.
B. Munshi, Deputy Cont missioner of Sales Tax, Bombay(3)
where this Court did not accept the principle laid down by
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
T. G. Lakshmaiah Chetty & Sons(4), that the Deputy
Commissioner of Sales Tax while exercising revisional powers
under the Sales Tax Act of 1946 or of 1953 or of 1959 could
not travel beyond the material or record that is available
to the assessing authority and was not entitled to find data
to institute an enquire. so as to include additional
material in order to judge the correctness of the order
sought to be revised and held:
(1) (1965) 16 S.T.C. 875. (3) [1968] 2 S. C. R.492.
(2) (1959) 10 S.T.C. 155. (4) 12 S.T.C.663.
118
"Whenever a power is conferred on an authority to
revise an order, the authority is entitled to examine
the correctness, legality and propriety of the order
and to pass such suitable orders as the authority may
think fit in the circumstances of the particular case
before it. When exercising such powers, there is no
reason why the authority should not be entitled, to
hold an enquiry or direct an enquiry to be held and,
for that purpose, admit additional material. The
proceedings for revision, if started suo motu, must not
of course be based on a mere conjecture and there
should be some ground for invoking the revision powers.
Once these powers are invoked, the actual
interference must be based on sufficient grounds, and,
if it is considered necessary that some additional
enquiry should be made to arrive at a proper and just
decision, there can be no bar to the revising authority
holding a further enquiry or directing such an enquiry
to be held by some other appropriate authority. ’This
principle has been clearly recognised by this Court in
the State of Kerala v. Abdullah and Company (1965) 16
S.T.C. 875."
The decisions of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of
Agricultural income tax and Sales Tax, Quilon and Anr. v.
Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co.(1) the State of Kerala v. V.M.
Appukutty and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v.
Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry(3) relied upon by Mr. Desai in
support of his contention that while exercising his
revisional power under section 20(3) of the Act, the Com
Commissioner cannot travel outside the return made by the
assessee and the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax
officer with a view to finding out suppressed or escaped
items of turnover and enhance the assessment are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
distinguishable as in all those cases there were specific
and separate provisions which enabled escaped turnover or
income being brought to tax after following a special
procedure. In Dhanalakshimi Vilas Cashew Co‘s case
(supra), there was rule 33 of Kerala General Sales Tax
Rules, 1950, in M. Appukutty case (supra), there was rule 17
of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939; and in
Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry‘s case (supra) there were sections
34 and 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which enabled escaped
turnover or escaped income to be brought to tax. In the Act
before us, however there are no separate or specific
provisions for assessment of‘ escaped turnover which may, by
implication, be said to exclude from the ambit of the
revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner the taking of
additional facts into consideration and enhancing the gross
turn over.
In view of the foregoing discussion we have no
hesitation in repelling the first contention raised on
behalf of the appellant by Mr. Desai and in holding that the
High Court was right in answering the First question
referred to it by the Board of Revenue in the affirmative.
This takes us to the second contention advanced on
behalf of the appellant which is covered by the second
question referred by the
(1) (1969) 24 S.T.C. 491.
(2) (1963) 14 S.T.C.242.
(3) (1962) 44 I.T.R. 891.
119
Board of Revenue at the requisition of the High Court. For
effectively dealing with this contention, it is necessary to
advert to the following two previsions viz. section 14 of
the Act and rule 80A of the Rules:
"14. (1) The Commissioner may, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed, require any dealer
(a) to produce before him any accounts, registers
or documents,
(b) to furnish any information, relating to stock
of goods of, or purchases, sales or
deliveries of goods by, the dealer or
relating to any other matter, as may be
deemed necessary for the purposes of this
Act.
(2) (a) All accounts, registers and documents
relating to the stocks of goods of, or purchases, sales
and deliveries of goods by any dealer; and
(b) all goods kept in any place of business of any
dealer shall at all reasonable times be open to
inspection of the Commissioner.
(3) If the Commissioner has reason to suspect that
any dealer is attempting to evade payment of any tax
under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, seize such accounts, registers or documents,
of the dealer as may be necessary, and shall grant a
receipt for the same, and shall retain the same only
for so long as may be necessary for examination thereof
or for a prosecution.. "
"Rule 80A. The appellate or revisional authority
may, before finally disposing of the matter, make such
inquiry or cause such inquiry to he made by such
officer as it may think fit."
A combined reading of the provisions of Section 20(3)
of the Act and rule 80A of the Rules would show that the.,
Commissioner, Commercial taxes is empowered to make or cause
to be made such enquiry as he may think fit for proper
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction conferred on him
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
under section 20(3) of the Act. It would be further noticed
that the Commissioner can, under; section 14 of the Act,
call upon ,. dealer to produce any accounts, registers or
documents or to furnish any information relating to his
business as may be deemed necessary. for the purpose of the
Act which include the exercise of recessional jurisdiction.
It would also be noticed that the powers under section 14 of
the Act have been duly delegated to the Commercial Tax
Officer. In this state of affairs, it is immaterial whether
the Commissioner proceeds to make the enquiry before or
after filing of a revision petition so long as he affords to
the person likely to be adversely affected by his action,
an opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, the
whole thing was duly processed s already stated. the
Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, by his notice dated
120
October 25, 1960 gave adequate opportunity to the appellant
to explain the discrepancies in its cash memos and books of
accounts. Another opportunity to explain the suspicions
circumstances relating to the alleged suppression of the
turnover as also to refute the material collected by the
Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, as a result of the
investigation made by him and to show cause why action to
subject the escaped turnover to tax be not taken was
afforded to the appellant by the Additional Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, when on receipt of the ,aforesaid report
dated December 27, 1960 of the Commercial Tax officer,
Central Section, he gave a notice to the former and
furnished him with a full copy of the report. It cannot
therefore, be maintained with any show of force that, in
admitting and relying, on the aforesaid report dated
December 27, 1960 of the Commercial Tax officer, Central
Section, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
committed any illegality or breach of any statutory
provision or rule or transgressed the limits of his
jurisdiction. It will also not be out of place to mention
that the contention which is the subject matter of the
second question was never raised before the Board or Revenue
as appears from the statement of the case drawn by it. We
arc, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court was
right in answering the second question also in the
affirmative.
In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby
dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any
order as to costs.
P.B.R. Appeals dismissed.
121