Skip to content


D. Padmavathi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 344 of 1975 and Revision No. 60 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1979]44STC446(Mad)
AppellantD. Padmavathi
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Appellant AdvocateC. Natarajan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Venkataswami, Additional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....etc., were directly despatched by the dealer at madras to hindustan lever ltd., bombay. the deputy commissioner, took up suo motu revision proceedings, and revised the assessment by bringing to tax the turnover which had not been taxed by the assessing authority. the assessee filed an appeal before the sales tax appellate tribunal contending that the order of the deputy commissioner was time-barred, and that the deputy commissioner should not have exercised his jurisdiction when the matter could have been dealt with under section 16 or section 55 of the act by the assessing authority itself. the tribunal rejected both these submissions. it is against this order the revision petition has been filed.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner did not put forward any contention on the.....
Judgment:

Sethuraman, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25th March, 1976, in T.A. No. 243 of 1974. The assessee deals in milk food, aromatic chemicals, etc. It was finally assessed to tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar, on a turnover of Rs. 10,31,706.54 as against nil turnover reported by the assessee. Although the assessee had originally filed a return under the Act claiming that his entire turnover of Rs. 20,66,082.58 was exempt, the assessment was made on Rs. 10,31,706.54 as inter-State sales. The difference between the two amounts was taken to be transfer of goods from Madras to the assessee's representative at Bombay. It was later found from the intelligence report that aromatic chemicals, etc., were directly despatched by the dealer at Madras to Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay. The Deputy Commissioner, took up suo motu revision proceedings, and revised the assessment by bringing to tax the turnover which had not been taxed by the assessing authority. The assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was time-barred, and that the Deputy Commissioner should not have exercised his jurisdiction when the matter could have been dealt with under Section 16 or Section 55 of the Act by the assessing authority itself. The Tribunal rejected both these submissions. It is against this order the revision petition has been filed.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner did not put forward any contention on the question of limitation, because the period of limitation which was originally four years was extended to five years and even before the expiry of the period of four years, in the present case, the period was extended to five years. Therefore, at the time when the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took up the matter, he had a period of five years from the date of the order and, therefore, he could exercise jurisdiction under Section 32.

3. The only question that requires to be considered is whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment, when the assessment could have been reopened by the assessing authority itself, by reference to Section 16, or could have been rectified under Section 55. The Act gives, it is true, wide powers to the assessing authority to reopen an assessment under Section 16. But there is nothing in Section 32, which imposes any restriction on the exercise of the power by the Deputy Commissioner on account of the existence of this power under Section 16. In other words, the two sections are mutually exclusive and give different powers to different authorities. Therefore, if action could be taken under one section, it does not follow that action could not be taken under the other. Where it is possible to act under two provisions, the department may resort to the one instead of the other and it cannot be compelled to proceed under only one of the two provisions. Section 32 provides for the examination of the order passed by a subordinate authority under certain provisions set out therein. So long as the jurisdiction is exercised with respect to an order contemplated by the section, there would be no error in the exercise of jurisdiction. The revision petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.


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