TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (7) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also assessed for the subsequent periods from 5th May, 1961, to 31st March, 1963, and 1st April, 1963, to 24th October, 1965, as a registered dealer. It appears that the assessment order for the period from 1st January, 1960, to 4th May, 1961, was passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 30th September, 1964, holding that the opponent was liable from 1st January, 1960. The opponent went in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who fixed his liability from 1st April, 1960. The Assistant Commissioner passed his order on 27th August, 1965. In view of this order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Sales Tax Officer passed a fresh assessment order for the period from 1st April, 1960, to 4th May, 1961, on 15th January, 1966.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....form part of the record in existence before the taxing authority. This contention found favour with the Tribunal and, therefore, revision application of the opponent was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15th July, 1969, in revision was set aside. At the instance of the State, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax or any irregularity in the proceeding adopted by him, and then assuming revisional jurisdiction under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at for passing an order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, if the revising authority is satisfied that the subordinate officer has committed an illegality or impropriety in the order or irregularity in the proceeding, he cannot make or direct any further enquiry." In Swastik Oil Mills Limited v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay[1968] 21 S.T.C. 383 (S.C.)., the principle enunciated in K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 875 (S.C.)., was reaffirmed, where Bhargava, J., speaking for the court, observed: "....................Whenever a power is conferred on an authority to revise an order, the authority is entitled to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order and to pass ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is normally to be exercised in matters de hors the record of assessment proceedings. Grover, J., speaking for the court observed in that judgment as under: "Now section 15 of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case suo motu or on application for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of an order made by the subordinate authority or as to the regularity of the proceedings. He is further empowered to pass any order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. This jurisdiction is quite distinct and separate from the one created by rule 33 which obviously has been framed under clause (f) of section 24(2). That rule enables the assessing authority within the prescribed peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revisional proceedings, relied on the materials which were not part of the matter before the taxing authority. The Deputy Commissioner, in other words, did not restrict himself to the record of the proceedings before invoking revisional powers. In that view of the matter, therefore, the Tribunal was right when it held the ratio of K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Co.'s case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 875 (S.C.). that the revising authority did not only call for the record of the order or the proceedings and did not, for purposes of scrutinising or ascertaining the legality or propriety of the order or regularity of the proceedings, consider the record alone. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had acted beyond his jur....