TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (5) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier?" The assessee carried on the business in Sutli jute goods, etc., in the year 1964-65. He declared a net turnover of Rs. 28,57,355.69. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts and fixed the turnover as Rs. 31,10,000. An appeal was filed against this order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who reduced the turnover to Rs. 29,20,000. A revision was filed by the assessee before the revising authority, but that was dismissed. The department also preferred a revision against the order of the appellate authority, but that revision was not heard along with the revision of the assessee, as it appears to have been filed subsequently. The Additional Judge (Revisions) by his order dated 24th April, 1970, allowed the revision of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... file his revision application as soon as the other party does. Normally, it may be that a party may after receiving notice of a revision application filed by the other party, file his own revision application in case he is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, but the law does not make it incumbent on him to do so. He can postpone the filing of his revision application before the period of limitation prescribed under section 10(6) runs out. Section 10 does not contain any provision which destroys the right conferred by section 10(2) of filing a revision in case the revision application of one party has been disposed of. In the absence of such a provision, we do not think it appropriate to apply the theory of merger, and hold t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was incompetent. It was held that the subject-matter of the assessee's revision was its liability to be assessed on proceeds of other sales, while the subject-matter of the Commissioner's revision was different, inasmuch as it challenged the order of remand. In this view of the matter it was held that the revision application filed by the Commissioner was competent. This decision proceeded on the basis that the scope of the two revisions was different. In the present case, this does not appear to be the position. The order disposing of the revision application filed by the assessee was produced before us. At one stage we thought of calling for a further statement of the case so that the earlier order may be formally brought on the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. This may be so, but it was open to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to urge in the revision filed by the assessee that the enhancement in the turnover made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should in any event be upheld as the order of the Sales Tax Officer enhancing the turnover was justified. In the revision filed by the assessee, in view of the pleas taken by him, the Judge (Revisions) not only considered the question as to whether the enhancement made by the Assistant Commissioner was justified, but also that the turnover as disclosed in the account books should be accepted, the order of the Sales Tax Officer enhancing the turnover was as such also the subjectmatter of consideration. In this context, although as has been held in C....