AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (4) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the opinion that dealings in hides and skins not covered by a licence were not chargeable to tax. This view was not accepted by the Supreme Court which held that such transactions would be liable to multi-point tax under section 6-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madras, by his notice dated 26th June, 1956, called upon the petitioner to produce his accounts on a specified date. On that date the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer scrutinized the accounts but nothing transpired immediately thereafter. From the assessment file sent up to this Court, it however appears that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the basis of his check of the accounts assessed the turnover and made a draft assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In relation to the suo motu proceedings of revision set in motion by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it is contended that since no proceeding was pending to assess the petitioner for 1954-55 when the new Act came into force, there is no longer any power to bring the petitioner to charge. The scope and effect of section 61 was considered by this Court in Ratanchand Chordia v. State of MadrasW.P. No. 345 of 1960., and the connected petitions and it is wholly unnecessary to reiterate what I stated in those petitions. In this particular case it may be observed that even before the new Act came into force the assessing authority had taken steps to call upon the petitioner to produce the accounts, which h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. But it appears to be unnecessary to go into the question whether the petitioner's case was one of escaped turnover or a case of original assessment under section 9 of the old Act corresponding to section 12 of the new Act. Whether it is the one or the other, the point raised is common to both, namely, that the procedure prescribed under rule 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, has not been followed. Rule 12 requires that if no return is submitted by a dealer, the assessing authority before taking action under rule 11, should issue a notice to the dealer and make such enquiry as he considered necessary. It is not the case for the department that this procedure had been complied with. The contention for the petitioner is, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s suo motu power to revise under section 32? The scheme of that section suggests that the power is directed against the order of the authorities below the Deputy Commissioner in respect of which the appeal time had expired. Subsection(2) of section 32 clearly says that the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass an order under sub-section (1) if "the time for appeal against the order has not expired." Certainly in this case it cannot be said that the time for appeal against the order has expired because the time for appeal would only commence from the date of the communication of the order, and there being no communication of the order at all to the petitioner, it stands to reason that section 32(2)(c) has not been complied with. No doubt, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices proposing to revise the order, which was not communicated at all to the petitioner, is illegal and without jurisdiction. It may be recognized that for an assessment order to be valid, it need not necessarily be communicated to the assessee. But that does not mean that when the power of revision is sought to be exercised, it could validly be done when the person affected had not been told of the order to be revised. The learned Additional Government Pleader strongly relied on Periasami Nadar v. State of Madras[1962] 13 S.T.C. 328., and contended that even in such cases the power of revision could be exercised. But that was not the point which was decided in that case. On facts of course the order of assessment there was made on 28t....