V RAMASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4, 83, 264.18 and Rs. 4, 83, 264.18 respectively for the year 1979-80. Before the accounts were called for and checked, the place of business of the assessee was inspected on November 8, 1979, by the officer of the Enforcement Wing, Salem and certain defects were noticed. THE defects noted were that the day-book was written up to September 24, 1979 only and no transactions were noted in stock book for the month of October 1979. When the accounts were called for and checked up, they disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 4, 85, 264.18 against Rs. 4, 83, 264.18 shown by the assessee in A2 returns. THE assessing officer rejected the accounts and the returns produced by the assessee as incorrect and incomplete and determined the assessment to the best of judgment. THE assessing officer arrived at the total taxable turnover as follows :

(2.) WE have heard Mr. N. Inbarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, who took us through the order of the first appellate authority in extenso and demonstrated before us that the first appellate authority has gone into the records seized and the slips recovered and came to the correct conclusion with regard to suppression. The learned counsel further argues that there is no justification for the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers under section34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the facts and circumstances of the case. He further argues that this is a case where the revisional authority has just exercised the revisional jurisdiction automatically without application of mind.

(3.) CONSIDERING the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides we are of the view that this is a typical case where the Joint Commissioner has exercised the power of revision in a casual manner. It is settled law that this Court under section37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act exercises wide powers in the appellate jurisdiction against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner under section34 of the Act, exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The assessee/appellant before us is against the order of the Joint Commissioner. When we have gone through the order of the Joint Commissioner carefully, we could see that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has passed an order meticulously trying to bring down suppression which has been put at a higher figure by the assessing officer without any norms. When the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has passed a well-considered order under section31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Joint Commissioner has exercised his powers under section34 of the Act, as we have stated, very casually. This Court, while explaining the power of suo motu revision in such cases, in Avon Plastics v. State of Tamil Nadu has held as follows :"