AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (11) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee did not record monthly sales of meal tickets and did not disclose the correct turnover. Being aggrieved by these decisions of the Commercial Tax Officer, the assessee preferred three appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. That officer also held that the accounts were not verifiable and that the assessing officer was justified in estimating the turnover to the best of his judgment for all the periods under appeal. He, however, thought the assessment to be excessive as, in his view, the first year 1956-57 was the commencement of the new business and accordingly reduced the taxable turnover from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 80,000. He took the same view even for the two half-years of 1957-58 and effected reduction accordingly by his consolidated order dated 13th April, 1959. Thereafter, the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, IV Additional Circle, Bangalore, was inspected by the Inspecting Officer in April, 1960, and he scrutinised the records of Messrs Ratan Cafe, Malleswaram, during the course of the inspection. As a result of this inspection, he reported to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 18th April, 1960, that the expenditure over food supplied to the emplo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... procedure adopted by them. 4.. In order to examine the tenability of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is necessary to examine the powers of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in revising an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner in appeal. Section 15(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended by Amending Act No. XVII of 1955 was the law in force at the material date. It reads as follows: "15. Revisional powers of Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner(1) (2) The Commissioner may,- (i) suo motu, or (ii) in respect of any order passed or proceeding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (1) or any other provision of this Act and against which no appeal has been preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under section 16, on application, call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit: * * * * * Sub-section (5) of section 15 which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited[1959] 10 S.T.C. 155., their Lordships of the Madras High Court considered the meaning of the word "propriety" as used in section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and rule 14 framed by the State Government. Section 12 of that Act is identical with section 15 of the Mysore Act. It was contended before their Lordships that the Commercial Tax Officer could only interfere with the orders passed by a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer if they were patently illegal or outside his jurisdiction, or there was impropriety in the sense of misconduct like bribery or inducement by immorality being the cause for the order, and irregularity in the sense that the procedure was not followed. While rejecting this argument, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., observed: "We are unable to agree. It will be meaningless, in our opinion to have a hierarchy of officers inspecting the subordinate offices and examining the records and orders passed by the subordinate officers in money matters involving public revenue if these superior officers are not allowed to examine the correctness of those orders, which correctness will certainly, in our opinion, be one of the factors for determining the propr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atters not in evidence and when the view taken by the lower Court lacks in propriety and could be said to be such as no reasonable man could take on the evidence available." Section 10 of the Small Cause Courts Act used the words "correctness, legality or propriety" while section 4(2) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act used the words "legality or propriety". Venkataramiya J., who delivered a concurring judgment, opined that the words used in section 10 of the Mysore Small Cause Courts Act and those in section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "are wide enough to permit the High Court going into evidence where it considers that it is necessary to do so in the ends of justice. In his Lordship's view the word "propriety" of a finding involves or implies a consideration of its correctness. The Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla & Co.[1960] 11 S.T.C. 295., had to consider the scope of section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It approved the view taken by the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Madura Knitting Company Limited[1959] 10 S.T.C. 155., and held that the word "propriety" meant correctness. In its view the words "may pass such orders....