TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notices in form IX dated November 24, 1987 for reopening the assessments for the periods of 12 months ending 15th K.B. 2041, 2042 and 2043, respectively on the ground that tax ought to have been levied at 15 per cent under Notification No. 1022-F.T. dated March 29, 1984, but assessment was made at 7 per cent. Short facts which are relevant for appreciating the dispute are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. He is an importer of crockery made of stoneware and a reseller of other crockeries. The assessment for the period of 12 months ending 15th K.B. 2041 corresponding to 1983-84 was made on May 4, 1987 and the assessment for the next year ending 15th K.B. 2042 was made on July 24, 1987. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 12 of Notification dated August 26, 1977 which came into force from September 1, 1977. Whatever might be the case of the applicant in the main application, Mr. Somen Bose, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted at the hearing that crockery made of stoneware was notified and brought under the purview of the 1954 Act under Notification No. 1206-F.T. dated March 26, 1979, although that notification mentioned only section 4 of the said Act as the source of power for issuing the same. Mr. Somen Bose contended on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in [1964] 52 ITR 583 (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh) that if the authorities have a power to issue a notification, mere absence of mention of the appropriate provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to tax at 15 per cent with effect from April 1, 1989, by a fresh notification. The second contention of the applicant is that the power of review under section 12(2) of the 1954 Act could not be validly exercised by the respondent in the facts and circumstances of this case, because the notification dated March 29, 1984 was already known to the assessing officer at the time of making the impugned assessment for the year 1987 and no new ground was there to justify a review. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the applicant, further referred to the following statement in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents: "At the time of assessment for the period 4 Q.E. 15th day of Kartick Bodi 2041 and 2042, the petitioner had cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly it was claimed, the notices for review were issued for reopening the relevant assessments. Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, has submitted on an inquiry from us that the records did not disclose that there was any information that the applicant had passed off sales of some other crockeries which were taxable at 15 per cent, as stoneware crockeries. Thus in both the affidavits filed by the respondents, the object of issuing the notices for review is allegedly to rectify the assessments in respect of rate of tax leviable on sales of crockeries other than stoneware crockeries. Apart from the fact that there was no information for reopening the assessment on this ground, it is to be noted that the impugned notices f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion dated March 29, 1984 by which the rate of tax was raised to 15 per cent was already known to the assessing officer when he made the assessment in the year 1987. We are not entering into the question whether, as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, the notification dated March 29, 1984 at all applied to crockery made of stoneware. Assuming that it applied to crockery made of stoneware, there was no new ground or no reasonable ground in this case, for which the assessing officer might have exercised the power of review under section 12(2). The ground on which the impugned review was sought to be made cannot be treated as error apparent on the face of the record. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Commercial T....