TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92 was proposed by the authority. The writ petition has come up before this Court challenging the aforesaid notice by contending that the same has not been lawfully issued and therefore, would be open to appropriate interference by this Court. 2.. The facts of the case, in brief, may be recited hereinbelow: The assessments of the petitioner-company in respect of its liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the two periods in question were completed under section 17(4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner applied to the authority for cancellation of the aforesaid best judgment assessment and the Superintendent of Taxes, Oral. i.e., the assessing authority, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner by relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [1990] 79 STC 10 has contended that to enable the authority to exercise the power of suo motu revision conferred by section 36(1) of the Act of 1993, two conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Learned counsel has argued that this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh [1990] 79 STC 10 has interpreted the expression "erroneous" to mean an error committed by the assessing officer in respect of his jurisdiction meaning thereby that either the assessment has been made without jurisdiction or the same has been made with material irregularity or illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessing officer and not on the revisional authority and therefore, the impugned notice dated September 23, 1993 would be wholly without jurisdiction. 5.. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has sought to controvert the arguments advanced by the writ petitioner by contending that the present writ application is a premature one, inasmuch as, by the impugned notice, the petitioner has been merely asked to show cause and it will be always open for the petitioner to advance the arguments now put forward before the revisional authority. On the said basis, the learned Government counsel has argued that this Court ought not to exercise its discretionary power to issue a writ in favour of the writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that the correction of such error must be by adoption of other modes as contemplated by the Act. In the instant case what is noticeable is that the assessments had been completed by the assessing officer upon due and proper satisfaction on the basis of the records produced by the assessee. No error, jurisdictional in nature, is disclosed in the assessment orders passed though the revisional authority has subsequently come into possession of certain materials which in its opinion has rendered the assessments bad in law. The same, however would not justify recourse to the suo motu revisional power. The required correction, if any, has to be made by recourse to other modes within the four corners of the statute. 7.. Coming to the second a....