HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern and is a registered dealer under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (since repealed with effect from 1.7.93). The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.11.90 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaon Zone, Nagaon exercising suo- moto power of revision under the Assam Fiance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 for period ending 30.9.82 to 30.9.87 and the revised orders of assessment dated 4.4.91 issued pursuant there to.

(2.) The petitioner filed its returns of turnover for the periods ending 30.9.82,30.9.84, 30.9.86, 31.3.87 and 30.9.87 under the aforesaid Act of 1956 showing therein the gross turnover of onions it deals with as per books of account maintained at Rs. 27,217/-; Rs. 50,144/s Rs. 76,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 4,83,000/- respectively. The petitioner paid the admitted taxes due as per the said returns @ 7% on taxable sales of onion as specified under item No. 56 of the schedule attached to the Act. The respondent No. 2 upon examination and verification of the same, completed the assessment under Section 9(3) of the Act by his orders of assessment dated 6.10.82, 22.6.86, 17.3.87, and 15.2.88 for the aforesaid periods. He accepted the books of accounts and the sales shown as correct and complete. The demands raised in pursuance of the above assessment were paid by the petitioner.

(3.) When the matter rested thus, the respondent No. 3 issued notice to the petitioner invoking its suo-moto power of revision under Section 20( 1) of the Act for the periods ending 30.9.82 to 30.9.87 in the light of the communication dated 9.3.88 issued by the Commissioner of Tax. The petitioner responded to the notice and produced relevant books of accounts which were earlier verified by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 upon hearing the petitioner and on perusal of records cancelled the original assessments for the above five periods by the impugned order dated 27.11.90 and directed the respondent No. 2 to make fresh assessment by determining the sales price as determined by him in the impugned order. However, the respondent No. 3 did not interfere with the original assessment orders for the six periods ending 31.3.83, 30.9.83, 31.3.84, 31.3.85, 30.9.85 and31.3.86 since the same were found correct and complete.