BAIJNATH BISWANATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against and arising out of a common order dated December 17, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No. 3, under section 20 (1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956, for the assessment periods ending September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985 and March 31, 1986 as well as the consequential orders passed thereunder.

(2.) THE petitioner/firm is a registered dealer under Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Prior to enactment of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, petitioner No. 1 was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The petitioner at the relevant time was a registered dealer who used to deal in potatoes and onions and also submitted its returns on turnovers under the provisions of the Act, 1956 for the periods ending September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985 and March 31, 1986. The petitioner in terms of the notice under section 9 (2) of the Act, 1956 produced the books of account. Respondent No. 2, the concerned Superintendent of Taxes, made assessment under section 9 (3) of the Act, 1956 by his order dated January 9, 1985. The assessing officer also accepted the sales as correct and complete in the absence of any information to the contrary. By notice dated March 15, 1989, the respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, under section 20 (1) of the Act, 1956, informed the petitioner about his proposal to pass order for enhancement of assessment orders on the total turnovers for the periods ending September 30, 1983, March 31, 1984, September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985, March 31, 1986, September 30, 1986, March 31, 1987 in order to get the due revenue on the ground that the orders of assessment in the relevant periods appeared to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The petitioner/firm was accordingly served with the above notice to appear before the respondent No. 3 and explain its position. The petitioner responded to the notice and submitted its reply to the show cause before respondent No. 3 and questioned the proceeding initiated under section 20 (1) of the Act, 1956. By a common order dated December 17, 1990 passed by respondent No. 3 under section 20 (1) of the Act, 1956, the orders of assessment for the periods ending September 30, 1984, March 31, 1985, September 30, 1985 and March 31, 1986 were cancelled and directed to make fresh assessment on the basis of indications given by him in the above order. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No. 3, indicated the grounds of suo motu revision which reads as follows :

(3.) AN affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 through the Joint Commissioner of Taxes disputing the contentions of the writ petitioners. The respondent on its affidavit stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, presently the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, in the course of his routine inspection of records of the case, found that the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer was without proper application of mind and on consideration of the materials on record and other informations available, the respondent No. 3 was satisfied that the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly, proceeding under the law was initiated and after considering the explanation of the petitioners and on examination of the materials on record, passed the common order dated December 17, 1990 and cancelled the assessment of the dealer forthwith and directed for fresh assessment.