(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 order of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax whereunder he has dismissed a common application filed by the petitioner under S.35(1) of the KGST Act, 1963 for suo motu revision of the sales tax assessments completed for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 for granting exemption on the sales turn over of composition books, which according to the petitioner, was wrongly assessed when it was exempted under Serial No.6 of the III Schedule to the KGST Act, 1963.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
(3.) Sales tax assessment of the petitioner for the assessment years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 were completed vide Exts. P1 and P2 dated 28.2.1994 and 23.2.1995 respectively. Assessments were completed based on the returns filed by the petitioner whereunder he has disclosed sales turnover of composition books as taxable. The assessments so completed were not contested in appeals and orders became final. However, according to the petitioner, sales turnover of composition books which was exempted from tax under Sl. No. 6 of the III Schedule to the KGST Act, 1963 was wrongly assessed. Therefore, the petitioner filed application before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax under S.35(1) of the KGST Act for suo motu revision of the original assessments completed whereunder petitioner had already paid the tax on the turn over of composition books. The Deputy Commissioner under a detailed order Ext. P4 held that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under S.35 of the KGST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 67 ITR 84, and contended that even if revision of assessment under S.35(1) leads to loss of revenue, still the assessment has to be revised as order passed against the statutory provisions are orders prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.