2013 (3) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the file of the respondent. The petitioner had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.1,72,100/-, for the assessment year 2003-2004, under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent had accepted the total and taxable turnover, as submitted by the petitioner, on verification of the relevant records of the petitioner, including the day book, ledger and the purchase and sales bills and had passed an order, under Section 12 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, dated 23.9.2004. 3. It has been further stated that the respondent had passed an order revising/rectifying the taxable turnover to Rs.1,09,71,200/-, taxable at 4%, u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tax Act, 1959.   5. It has been further stated that, on 3.9.2009, an order had been passed, followed by two more orders, said to be under Section 55 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax, 1959, and under the provisions of the Central Sales Act, 1956. In the order relating to the rectification of the mistake, passed under the provisions of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of the assessment year, 2003-2004. the respondent had shown certain tax balances as NIL. However, the respondent had committed a serious error of law by issuing a notice and by passing an order based on the said notice, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and thereafter, substituting the said notice by issuing an order to rectify the mistake an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of limitation. On 10.5.2012, the petitioner had also appeared before the respondent for a personal hearing and had reiterated the objections raised earlier.   6. It has been further stated that the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 30.5.2012, in TNGST No.2740924/2003-2004, and had levied purchase tax of Rs.4,38,848/-. It had been further stated in the said order that a notice of revision of assessment had been issued, on 20.2.2006. However, the notice had been issued, inadvertently, citing the CST Assessment No.424465/2003-2004, as the reference number, instead of showing the TNGST Assessment No.2740924/2003-2004. Such an order cannot be passed by the respondent, as it has no legal basis. No proper explanation has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; 8. It has been further stated that the power, under Section 16 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the revision of the assessment order would arise only when there is a turnover which had escaped assessment or when there is willful suppression by the petitioner to evade tax liability. Further, Section 55 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, could be invoked to revise an order of assessment only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. However, in the present case, the respondent does not have the power or the authority to pass the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned notice, dated 20.3.2012, issued by the respondent, and the consequential order, dated 30.5.2012, are liable to be set aside.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, on such a notice being issued the petitioner had raised the plea of limitation, contrary to the spirit of the order passed by this Court, on 30.1.2012. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are liable to be rejected. The learned counsel had also submitted that the issue relating to limitation cannot be raised in matters where an order had been passed by an appellate authority or by this Court, remitting the matter back for passing an order, afresh.   11. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Director of Inspection of Income-Tax (Investigation), New Delhi and another Vs. Pooran Mall and Sons and another (96 ITR 360). 2. Deputy Commissioner of Comm....