K MURALIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. A. S. ANAND, C. J. This tax appeal is directed against the suo motu order of revision passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras , on 4th June, 1981.

(2.) BY the order dated 31st March, 1978, the Deputy commercial Tax Officer, Guindy Assessment Circle , determined the total and taxable turnover of the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the order the appellant filed an appeal. At the appellate stage it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant-assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax in view of the proviso to section 3 (3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, 1959. The assessee produced form XVII declarations for a sum of Rs. 95, 089. The assessee did not claim any concessional rate of tax in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 4, 569 which admittedly was not covered by form XVII declarations. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noticed the law laid down by this Court in Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras) Private Ltd. v. State of madras 1968 (21) STC 120, Eltex Engineering Corporation Private Ltd. v. Joint commercial Tax Officer 1972 (30) STC 146 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras refineries Limited 1978 (41) STC 306 and held that form XVII declarations could be filed and accepted even by the appellate authority. After so recording a finding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the assessing authority for scrutiny of the form XVII declarations and for disposal of the case according to law only in respect of the turnover of Rs. 95, 089 which was the amount covered by form XVII declarations furnished by the appellant-assessee. In exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, the Joint commissioner, however, set aside the order of the appellate authority and holding that since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not recorded any findings as to whether or not the failure on the part of the assessee to produce form XVII declarations before the assessing authority was for sufficient reasons beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, the order of remand was bad. Consequently the provisional pre-revision notice was confirmed and the amount of Rs. 95, 089 was restored for assessment as originally made by the assessing officer. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside.