Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 Deputy Commissioner could validly invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to reopen the completed assessment on the basis of the assessee's disclosure in income-tax proceedings, when the alleged suppression had already been considered in the original assessment and appellate proceedings.
Analysis: The turnover suppression alleged by the department was founded on the inspection conducted on 28 November 1992, and that very aspect had already been examined while completing the assessment and in appeal. The subsequent disclosure of additional income in income-tax proceedings did not furnish an independent basis to reopen the sales tax assessment, because the material relied on was already available and had been considered earlier. Revisional power could not be exercised merely because the Commissioner took a different view or because there was a perceived loss of revenue; the order sought to be revised had to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. On the facts, the prerequisites for revision were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The revisional order was invalid and the assessee succeeded.