Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional authority under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could itself recast the assessment and make a reassessment by enhancing the tax on first sales of hides and skins, and whether the limitation under section 16(1) affected such exercise of power.
Analysis: The original assessment had treated first sales of hides and skins as falling under entry 7(b) of Schedule II and levied tax at 11/2 per cent. The revisional authority interfered and itself levied tax at 3 per cent after notice and hearing. The Court held that revisional power is confined to correcting illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the subordinate order and does not authorise the revisional authority to assume the role of the assessing authority and make a fresh assessment or reassessment on its own. Since the assessing officer's original assessment on the goods was in accordance with entry 7(b) of Schedule II, the revisional interference was unwarranted. In view of this conclusion, the question of limitation did not arise.
Conclusion: The revisional authority had no jurisdiction to make the assessment itself under section 32, and the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under the sales tax law cannot be used to usurp the assessing authority's function of making an original assessment or reassessment; it is confined to correcting the legality or propriety of the existing order.