RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eight writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and as such they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE main question for determination in these cases relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Commissioner to exercise suo motu power of revision under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter "the Act" ). The facts of these cases lie in a narrow compass. To avoid repetition, facts of Civil; Rule No. 182 of 1982 only are being stated.

(3.) THE petitioner applied for time by filing a petition through his Advocate which was not granted on the ground that the Advocate did not file his vakalatnama and, as such, he had no locus standi to appear. The petition for adjournment was rejected. The Commissioner also held that the petitioner was evading to produce the records and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 29 (5) of the Act and passed an order to register a complaint against the petitioner with the Judicial Magistrate for the aforesaid offence. An appeal was filed before the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal did not go into the main contentions of the petitioner relating to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue notice on the ground that it was premature. It however, observed : "it is not correct to construe the provision of section 21 to mean that there must be some error obvious on the face of the records. Any assessment order can be taken up for revision by the Commissioner if he is of the view that it is prejudicial; to the interest of the revenue". The Tribunal also directed the Commissioner to give another opportunity to the petitioner to produce the vakalatnama and other records. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to initiate proceedings for suo motu revision under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act as also the interpretation given by the Tribunal to section 21 (1) that any order can be taken up for revision by the Commissioner if he is of the view that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even if there is no error in the same. The petitioner has also challenged the finding of the Commissioner holding that by seeking adjournment the petitioner had committed an offence under section 29 (5) of the Act and his order to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner.