R S NARAYANA SHENOI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner had been conducting oil mills at Vypeen under the name and style of "Vypeen Oil Mills". That is his family business and consists of purchasing and converting copra into coconut oil and cake and selling within the State and outside, the coconut oil and cake so manufactured. The Sales Tax Officer had for the assessment year 1951-52 found the taxable turnover to be Rs. 2,60,644-11-3, excluding the price of copra whose ml been sold outside Kerala State. Subsequently, he began proceedings to reopen and enhance the assessment; and by a fresh order of June 12 1954 found the turnover to be Rs. 6,89,809 As. 15 Ps. 3, on which the tax held payable came to Rs. 10,788-5-0, whereas the earlier tax had amounted to Rs. 4,072-9-0. The order enhancing the turnover has been objected to on the ground of being beyond the authority of the Officer; but the ground was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who has held that the Officer had acted within the power conferred on him by Rule 33 of the General Sales Tax Rules. The appeal to the Tribunal has been unsuccessful; and, therefore, this revision petition.

(2.) The revision petitioner's learned Advocate has pressed the argument g that the Rule, on which the appellate authorities rely, does not authorise assessment being reopened by the taxing authority because of some legal error having been committed, where the order had been passed with due care and without any part of the turnover having been concealed. In support he relies on State of Madras v. Louis Dreyfus and Company, Ltd. ((1955) 6 STC 318) where Rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, which is similar to Rule 33 under the Kerala C Rules, has been held to authorise reopening of only escaped turnover, and not to extend to illegal assessment. In further support of this argument, he relies on Kondapalli Viraraju v. State of Andhra ((1958) 9 STC 42, at p. 52) where the distinction drawn by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court has been followed. The passage in Louis Dreyfus' case, on which particular emphasis has been laid before us, is at p. 329, and reads as follows: