1951 (8) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Superintendent of Taxes, Tezpur, and claimed exemption from taxation to jute sold to certain registered dealers in Calcutta. The Superintendent of Taxes, Tezpur, rejected the claim and assessed the peti- tioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act. Against the order of the Superin- tendent of Taxes rejecting their claim, the petitioners preferred an appli- cation under Section 31 (1) before the Commissioner of Taxes who, while rejecting their claim, enhanced the assessment. The petitioners then made application under Section 32(2) of the Act to the Commissioner requiring him to refer certain questions of law, arising out of the order passed by him to this Court. The Commissioner of Taxes rejected the application by his order, dated 22nd Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot allowing deductions in respect of such sales out of the gross turnover, as required under Section 15 (1) (b) (i) (a). At the hearing, the petitioners' advocate abandoned questions 3, 4 and 5 and prayed that the Commissioner be required to state the case on the first two questions only. The question for our consideration is-whether the Commissioner has power to enhance the assessment in the exercise of his revisional jurisdic- tion under the provisions of Section 31 (1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. The provision 31(1) is in these terms: "Provided that no order prejudicial to a dealer shall be passed under this sub-section without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The powers of the appellate authority under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment. The record of the case, however, does not justify the contention. The learned Commissioner in his order, dated 22nd September, 1950, has stated:   "As regards questions (1) and (2) the case was taken up for hearing on 9th January, 1950, at Shillong. At the time of hearing, on examina- tion of the accounts produced and a statement of sales of jute, submitted by the petitioners it was found that many items of sale of jute were not included in the gross turnover. The hearing was, therefore, adjourned and it was intimated to the representative of the petitioners that a hearing would be given at Tezpur where the firm of the petitioners was situate so that all relevant papers and documents could be produced and examined in detail w....