VICTOR CANE INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order dated 31st July, 1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes cancelling the assessment order for the periods ending 31st March, 1988, 30th September, 1988 and 31st March, 1989 under section 20 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act and possessed a registration certificate. The petitioner for the periods ending 31st March, 1988, 30th September, 1988 and 31st March, 1989 was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes and petitioner submitted return and the assessing officer assessed the same under section 17(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act read with Central Sales Tax Act holding turnover nil giving exemption under 1986 incentive scheme. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes by memo dated 9th May, 1971 intimated the petitioner that the benefit of tax for the periods as mentioned above under section 3A was erroneously given though the petitioner was not entitled for such concession. He was accordingly directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner to show cause as to why the assessments should not be cancelled and the proceeding under section 31(1) of the said Act read with section 9(2) should not be initiated to realise the dues on the inter-States sales. The petitioner submitted his show cause. The Assistant Commissioner took up the matter on receipt of the reply of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner addressed him a letter on 1st July, 1992 stating that section 3A of the Assam Sales Tax Act has imposed some conditions for benefit of tax exemption. The relevant letter is extracted below :

(2.) BY order dated 31st July, 1992 the Assistant Commissioner accordingly directed to complete the assessment as per the aforesaid order. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is not happily worded however and by itself it will not make the proceeding faulty.

(3.) DR . Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432; (1992) 2 SCC 683 which is followed by this Court in Mahavir Coke Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [1995] 97 STC 186.