TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....September 30, 1985, March 31, 1986, September 30, 1986, March 31, 1987, September 30, 1987 and March 31, 1988 in respect of the dealer and restore original assessment orders as passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, GuwahatiUnit 'C' for periods mentioned above under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Sd/H.R. Keot, Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6." 2.. I have heard Sri. G.K. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners and Dr. B.P. Todi, learned advocate for the respondents. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, but Dr. Todi has produced before me the records of the case. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which is registered at Guwahati. The petitioner-company is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of M.S. rounds, steel and iron angles, steel and iron plates, etc. It is stated that there are schemes for giving certain benefits to the company, i.e., 1982 scheme and 1982 incentive scheme framed by the Government of Assam. Earlier the petitioner-company was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati Unit-C under the Assa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of production was from February 1, 1982. You are, therefore requested to produce the details of documents submitted to the Udyog Sahayak, as regards commencement of production for scrutiny under section 20 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act on November 27, 1990 to avoid disposal of the case ex parte." A reply was submitted vide annexure XXII, but the copy of the eligibility certificate was not produced by the petitioner stating therein that the taxing authority may contact the Udyog Sahayak for any enquiry regarding issue of eligibility certificate. As a matter of fact it appears from the tenure of the letter that the petitioner took a defiant stand to the notice issued by the authority. On September 25, 1992, the taxing authority wrote to the petitioner as follows vide annexure XXIII which is quoted below: "You claimed production of goods from January 1, 1983 as per eligibility certificate granted by the Industrial Department concerned even though your production was prior to January 1, 1983 as per our records. On further enquiry from us, the Industry Department expressed inability to trace out records/documents submitted by you on the basis of which the eligibility ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as such he could exercise the power. Before we go to decide the controversy let us have a look on the old and the new section. Section 20 in the old Act of 1956 provides the power of revision by the Commissioner. Section 20(1) provides, inter alia, as follows: "The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under section 4 to assist him, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment." Section 20(4) is quoted below: "The Commissioner shall not revise any order under this section in the following cases: (a) where an appeal against the order lies under section 19 or 20-A but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or in the case of an appeal to the Board, the dealer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been disposed of and as such this power can be exercised. Further, earlier the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) was an officer appointed to assist the Commissioner in the collection of revenue. So, the Commissioner can exercise the power of revision suo motu. In support of the contention Sri Joshi relies on the following decisions: (i) [1987] 167 ITR 671 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Muncherji and Company) wherein the Bombay High Court pointed out that once an appeal is preferred and the decision is given that will not be subject to suo motu revision by the Income-tax Commissioner. Sri Joshi also relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (1991) 93 CTR 294 (Commissioner of Incometax v. Gourishankar Khatumal & Bros.) wherein this Court considering a case under the Income-tax Act pointed out that once an order is passed by the appellate authority, the Income-tax Commissioner will not have the power for suo motu revision. But this Court pointed out that inspite of this the Income-tax Commissioner shall have the right to exercise the suo motu power of revision in respect of the matter which are not decided by the appellate authority inasmuch as the....