TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (3) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Madras in T.C. No. 223 of 1969. It appears that the appellants who are dealers in refrigerators, spare parts, etc., submitted a return for the year 1964-65 to the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras (hereinafter called the "assessing authority") under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") showing a total taxable turnover of Rs. 6,41,031.77. On checking the accounts of the appellants, the assessing authority by its order dated January 31, 1966, made an addition of Rs. 33,710.88 to the turnover reported by the appellants and assessed the sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 6,74,742.65. The appellants did not choose to prefer an appeal against this assessment. On January 7, 1967, the Deputy Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracts holding that as suo motu power of revision could be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner both for the benefit of the State and the taxpayer, he should have gone into the question of exemption and set right the assessment by allowing the exemption on the turnover relating to works contracts. Aggrieved by this order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the respondent filed a petition under section 38 of the Act to the High Court of Judicature at Madras for revision of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court allowed the revision petition in part and set aside the order of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the deletion of the turnover of Rs. 5,99,468. Counsel for the appellants has urged before us that as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) more than five years have expired after the passing of the order. (3) No order under this section adversely affecting a person shall be passed unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) In computing the period referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (2), the time during which the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner remained stayed under the orders of a civil court or other competent authority shall be excluded." The language of this section makes it clear that the suo motu power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the order or proceeding specified therein is quite wide and he can, subject to the conditions laid down in sub-sections (2) and (3), exercise the same even at the instance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cannot make or direct any further enquiry ......... It is, therefore, not right baldly to propound that in passing an order in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner must in all cases be restricted to the record maintained by the officer subordinate to him, and can never make enquiry outside that record ........................... Jurisdiction to revise the order or proceeding of a subordinate officer has to be exercised for the purpose of rectifying any illegality or impropriety of the order or irregularity in the proceeding." The limitations to which the revisional power is subject were indicated by the majority thus: "It would not invest the revising authority with power to launch upon enquiries at larg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amplitude and can be exercised in favour of the revenue as well as the taxpayer in order to correct any error or illegality committed by the assessing authority in his order of assessment. With regard to the second question relating to the refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his revisional power in favour of the appellants, we are of the view that the order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is true that money paid under a mistake of law common both to the assessee and the taxing authority can be got refunded (see the decision of this court in State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 689 (S.C.). But, in the instant case, the appellants themselves submitted a return showing taxable turnover of Rs. 6,41,0....