VIP INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the sales tax assessment order dated February 11, 1993 (annexure P10) for the period from August 1, 1989 to July 31, 1990.

(2.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by producing the copy of one order dated July 31, 1998, passed by Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 256/pbr/91, that in view of order passed by the Board of Revenue in favour of petitioner, this petition has to be allowed and impugned order of assessment be set aside.

(3.) PERUSAL of order of Board of Revenue dated July 31, 1998, filed and relied on by the petitioner clearly indicates that it relates to period from August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985. The facts of the case that led to filing of an appeal by the petitioner to Board of Revenue for the period in question (August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985) need mention. An assessment order for the period from August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985 was passed by the assessing officer on September 29, 1987 on the basis of the return filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner then on August 17, 1990 issued a show cause invoking its suo motu revisional powers under Section 39 (1) and called upon the assessee as to why the order of assessment dated September 29, 1987 be not set aside as according to Commissioner it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The petitioner contested the matter by filing a reply and urged that no case for revoking the original assessment order (September 29, 1987) is made out and hence invocation of suo motu power by the Commissioner is bad. The Commissioner by its order dated July 30, 1991, set aside the original assessment order (September 29, 1987) and remanded the case to assessing officer for making fresh reassessment under Section 18 (7) of the Act in respect of period (August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985 ). It is against this order of Commissioner setting aside the order of original assessment and remanding the case for fresh reassessment, the petitioner filed appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated July 31, 1998 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Commissioner. While allowing the appeal, this is what the learned Member of Board of Revenue in para 6 held :