TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (5) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Maharashtra). It carried on business at all the four offices. The assessee filed returns for the assessment year 1957-58 relating to the period 7th September, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, showing total sales at Rs. 5,87,616.53. Out of the said sales, it claimed deductions for sales to registered dealers, exports, etc., to the tune of Rs. 57,260.72, thus leaving the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,30,355.81. The Assessing Authority on perusal of the books of account found that these had been maintained in the normal course of business and were reliable. However, it determined the gross turnover of the assessee at Rs. 6,24,385 and after allowing the deduction as claimed for, worked out the taxable turnover as Rs. 5,77,124.63. The tax at 61 per cent was worked out on the said turnover. The assessee accepted the assessment and paid the tax demanded. The assessee was also assessed by the Assessing Authority, Solan, regarding sales effected by it there during the year 1957-58. One Mukand Singh filed a complaint on 5th October, 1962, that the assessee had shown sales of about 520 vehicles valued at Rs. 1,20,00,000 during the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, in the books of Solan office whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee came to Rs. 61,19,250.31. He consequently computed the tax at Rs. 3,82,40.12. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Enforcement Officer dated 22nd August, 1966, the assessee filed on 2nd November, 1966, a revision petition under section 21(3) of the Act before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, inter alia on the ground that the action of the Chief Enforcement Officer was really under section 11-A and not under section 21(3) of the Act and consequently, the proceedings were time-barred and without jurisdiction. In the meantime, the writ petition filed by the assessee was decided by the High Court on 28th November, 1969, wherein it was observed that the cases of the petitioner be disposed of in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench in Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner reported as [1969] 24 STC 258 (FB). The Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the revision petition on 24th November, 1971, holding that the Chief Enforcement Officer exercised powers under section 21 of the Act, and therefore the limitation as provided under section 11-A of the Act did not apply. On the application of the assessee the above two questions were referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the case may be." The scope of these sections has been dealt with by the Full Bench in Hari Chand Rattan Chand Co.'s case [1969] 24 STC 258 (FB). The relevant observations are as follows: "In order to decide the point of law referred to us, in the context of the argument of the learned counsel, it is necessary to determine the respective scope of sections 11-A and 21(1) of the Act. Section 11-A empowers the assessing authority to reassess a dealer in respect of any turnover which had escaped assessment or which had been under-assessed in consequence of any definite information which comes into his possession after the original order of assessment was made. This power cannot be exercised either by the appellate authority or the revisional authority. The revisional authority is entitled to call for the record of any case decided by the assessing authority or any appellate authority in order to see whether the order passed is proper or legal. Similarly he can call for the record of any proceedings pending before any assessing authority or appellate authority in order to determine the legality or propriety of the proceedings. But, before he decides to exercise this Power, he must....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings pending before an assessing authority and pass such order in respect thereof as he thinks fit according to section 21(1) of the Act. In exercise of that Power, he can also rely upon the information in his possession and enhance the assessment after giving notice to the dealer provided the period of limitation Prescribed in section 11-A of the Act has not expired. There is no period of limitation prescribed in the Act or the Rules framed under the Act within which alone the revising authority can exercise its power of suo motu revision under section 21(1) of the Act on the basis of the record called for by him nor can any such period of limitation be implied on the basis of section 11-A of the Act." (Emphasis supplied by underlining*). From the above observations, it is the clear that if a revising authority wants to revise an order after taking into consideration fresh material, it can do so within the period prescribed under section 11-A of the Act and not beyond that period. But if it wants to do so on the material already on the record, then the bar of limitation prescribed under section 11-A of the Act does not apply. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is cle....