Skip to content


The State of Madras Vs. Haji Shakoor Mohammed Essa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case No. 61 of 1957
Judge
Reported in(1960)IIMLJ143; [1960]11STC213(Mad)
AppellantThe State of Madras
RespondentHaji Shakoor Mohammed Essa
Appellant AdvocateG. Ramanujam, Adv. for ;The Government Pleader
Respondent AdvocateR. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Adv. for ;M.A. Ghatala, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....assessee for the year of assessment 1952-53. the original order of assessment was passed by the deputy commercial tax officer as the assessing authority, on 10th february, 1954. the assessee preferred an appeal to the commercial tax officer against that order of assessment and that appeal terminated on 29th june, 1954. subsequent to that in march, 1956, the deputy commercial tax officer took action under rule 17(1) of the madras general sales tax rules and issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why a turnover that had escaped assessment in the original assessment should not be subjected to assessment. on 31st march, 1956, the deputy commercial tax officer assessed the escaped turnover by adding a little over rs. 75,000 to the turnover which was originally taxed. against the.....
Judgment:

Rajagopalan, J.

1. This application, preferred by the State under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act, arose out of the proceedings to assess the assessee for the year of assessment 1952-53. The original order of assessment was passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer as the assessing authority, on 10th February, 1954. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer against that order of assessment and that appeal terminated on 29th June, 1954. Subsequent to that in March, 1956, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took action under Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why a turnover that had escaped assessment in the original assessment should not be subjected to assessment. On 31st March, 1956, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the escaped turnover by adding a little over Rs. 75,000 to the turnover which was originally taxed. Against the order dated 31st March, 1956, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, who dismissed it on 13th August, 1956. A further appeal was preferred by the assessee to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that, as the Deputy Commercial Trx Officer had not conformed to the requirements of Rule 17 (1-A), the order dated 31st March, 1956, had to be set aside. It was the correctness of that decision that was challenged by the State.

2. One of the points taken before the Tribunal was that, as the assessment of the escaped turnover related to the assessment year 1952-53, Sub-rule (1-A) and Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 17, which were issued subsequent to the termination of the assessment year 1953, could have no application. That was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and that plea has not been persisted in before us.

3. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in the interpretation it placed on the scope of Rule 17 (1-A). Rule 17 (1-A) and Rule 17 (3-A) have to be read together and in the case covered by Rule 17 (1-A) the assessing authority is the authority that dealt with the appeal under Section 11. In this case it was the Commercial Tax Officer, who had dealt with the appeal of the assessee against the original order of assessment, that was clothed with the jurisdiction to assess the escaped, turnover. The duty of the original assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, when he discovered that there had been a turnover that had escaped assessment, was to issue a notice under Rule 17(1) and thereafter submit the records to the Commercial Tax Officer as required by Rule 17(1-A). That the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer did not do in this case.

4. On behalf of the learned Additional Government Pleader, stress was laid on the passage in Rule 17 (1-A) 'where in respect of the turnover referred to in Sub-rule (1) an order has already been passed under Section 11....' Obviously the turnover cannot refer to the escaped turnover which is also referred to in Rule 17(1). Rule 17(1) refers to the whole or any part of a turnover that has escaped assessment. Against the original assessment of the turnover there was an appeal and subsequently it was found there was an escape of assessment when that turnover was assessed. In such circumstances, if there has been an appeal against the original order of assessment under Section 11 Rule 17(1-A) comes into play and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, when he discovers that there has been a turnover that has escaped assessment, has only to submit the records to the Commercial Tax Officer, who is constituted the assessing authority in such a case by Rule 17 (1-A).

5. As we said, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1O0.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //