PANCHI PETHA STORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question involved in the present case is whether the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 can revise the assessment order on the materials, which came into existence subsequent to that of passing of the assessment order. This revision is directed against the order dated February 20, 1991 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-II, Agra, in Second Appeal No. 426 of 1988 (assessment year 1980-81 part-I). The applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of petha and namkeen. The Sales Tax Officer passed assessment order on June 2, 1984 in respect to the assessment year 1980-81 (II-Part). It appears that subsequently the said assessment order was sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax under Section 10-B of the Act, on the basis of the fact that there was income-tax search and seizure in the business premises of the applicant and in that search and seizure the statement of the proprietor of the firm was recorded on February 24/25th 1987. In the said statement the proprietor of the firm before the Income-tax Department admitted that he had been making suppression of sale in the books of account. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax by order dated May 27, 1988 revised the assessment order dated June 2, 1984 and enhanced the tax liability. The applicant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Trade Tax Tribunal, which has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, Standing Counsel for the department.

(3.) It was submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax under Section 10-B of the said Act is wholly without jurisdiction. The order under Section 10-B can be revised when there is any illegality or impropriety in the assessment order on the basis of materials already on record, of the case. It was further submitted that at the most this case may be case of escaped assessment for which there is provision under Section 21. This plea was also raised before the Tribunal but was not accepted on the basis that on fresh information obtained from other source the Commissioner can revise the order under Section 10-B of the Act.