TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (2) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1972-73 and 1975-76, the petitioner filed D forms which were obtained from the Delhi buyers which were held to be educational institutions, for a total turnover of Rs. 86,634 and Rs. 74,143. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad, by his orders dated 29th October, 1973, relating to assessment year 1972-73 and by his orders dated 23rd June, 1976, relating to assessment year 1975-76, completed the assessment and levied tax at concessional rates accepting D forms submitted by the dealer. 'D' form, which was prescribed by the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rules made under that Act, is a statutory certificate that can be issued by Government certifying that goods sold in inter-State sales are purchased by or on behalf of the Government. The buyers in this case, not being a State Government, obviously cannot use the D form certificates. The Delhi buyers are admittedly private parties. Yet they succeeded somehow to issue these certificates in D form, resulting in the assessment of the petitioner at a lower rate. The form of certificate which is required to be issued by a private dealer purchasing goods in inter-State sales is C form. That form should state the purpose for which the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases is the result of change of opinion of the materials which were before the Commercial Tax Officer both at the time when the dealer was first assessed and revised assessment was made. The learned counsel now says that merely on reassessment of these materials, an assessment which has become final, cannot be reopened. We find it exceedingly difficult to see any relevance of this submission to the facts of this case. In fact, we are of the clear opinion that the matter is one which does not attract the application of any such principle. Rule 14-A(9) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, under the authority of which the assessing authority had reopened and reassessed these transactions, reads as follows: "If, for any reason, any tax has been assessed at too low a rate in any year, the assessing authority may after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, revise the assessment." The above can be paraphrased somewhat like this. If for any reason tax has been assessed at too low a rate, the assessing authority has the power to revise the assessment. The condition precedent for the operation of the rule conferring power o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectly and makes under-assessment or assesses the turnover at a lower rate and not at the rate prescribed. In the above discussion, we can hardly find any place for the importing of the concept of change of opinion and pressing an argument based upon that concept that would bar reopening of an assessment. There are no general laws which are applicable in these matters. The taxing authorities have to merely interpret the language used in the statute and see fairly whether reassessment is permissible and if so, subject to what conditions. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam v. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1972] 30 STC 567 (SC) to contend that the words "for any reason" would operate as limitations on the exercise of the power of reassessment given to the assessing authority. It is not entirely necessary to deny the validity of this contention, although it is possible to argue that the power to reassess given by rule 14-A(9) is based upon the occurring of an objective fact which is imposition of tax at a lower rate. In this context the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can only mean that the assessing authority must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not give the Income-tax Officer the power to reopen and reassess. The language of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act is totally and completely different from the language of rule 14-A(9) of the Central Sales Tax Rules. The decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) interpreting the language of the Income-tax Act cannot and ought not to have been cited by the learned counsel. It is a wholly different statute couched in a totally different form. We, therefore, reject this main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued, relying upon State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. Manohar Bros. [1962] 13 STC 686 (Mad.) and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd., Coimbatore [1963] 14 STC 369 (Mad.) that the reopening of assessment and reimposition of correct assessment cannot be based on the ground that an invalid form like a certificate in D form had been accepted. His argume....