Court quashes notice under Assam Sales Tax Act, 1993 for lacking jurisdictional error. Revisional power conditions not met.

The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice issued under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, as the necessary conditions for exercising the revisional power were found to be absent. The court held that the notice lacked disclosure of any jurisdictional error, and the Commissioner's satisfaction of the order being erroneous was not evident. Thus, the court quashed the notice, emphasizing the requirement for the order to be both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of revenue" for the revisional power to be applicable.

---

---

Issues involved: Assessment under Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956; Reopening of assessments u/s 11; Appeals against reassessment orders; Refund application; Revision of appellate order u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Assessment under Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956: The petitioner, a registered dealer, was assessed to tax for various periods at nil rate. Subsequently, the assessments were sought to be reopened u/s 11 due to delay in petitioner's response. Appeals were filed against reassessments, and upon depositing 50% of the tax assessed, the appeals were entertained and determined the tax liability as nil.

Refund application: After the appellate authority's order, fresh assessment orders were passed determining the tax liability as nil. The petitioner sought a refund of the tax and interest deposited earlier. During the pendency of the refund application, a notice was issued u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 to revise the appellate order on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Revision of appellate order u/s 36(1) of Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993: The power conferred by section 36(1) is a suo motu power to revise any order passed by the appointed authority. The pre-conditions for exercising this power require the order to be both "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of revenue." The jurisdictional error in the order sought to be revised must exist for the revisional power to be applicable. In this case, the impugned notice lacked disclosure of any jurisdictional error, and the Commissioner's satisfaction of the order being erroneous was not evident. Thus, the necessary conditions for exercising power u/s 36(1) were absent, leading to the writ petition being allowed and the impugned notice being set aside and quashed.

---