TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessment dated April 4, 1991 issued pursuant thereto. The petitioner filed its returns of turnover for the periods ending September 30, 1982, September 30, 1984, September 30, 1986, March 31, 1987 and September 30, 1987 under the aforesaid Act of 1956 showing therein the gross turnover of onions it deals with as per books of account maintained at Rs. 27,217, Rs. 50,144, Rs. 76,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 4,83,000, respectively. The petitioner paid the admitted taxes due as per the said returns at the rate of seven per cent on taxable sales of onion as specified under item No. 56 of the Schedule attached to the Act. Respondent No. 2 upon examination and verification of the same, completed the assessment under section 9(3) of the Act by hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pril 4, 1991 passed under section 9(3) of the Act read with section 11(1) of the Act and raised additional demand on account of tax. Penal interest was also charged in respect of the additional demand of tax as a consequence of which the petitioner was required to deposit the additional demand of tax at Rs. 41,654 and interest at Rs. 35,922 for the above return periods as per notice of demand issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Taxes against the revised orders of assessment along with the petitions for stay of the disputed demand till disposal of the revision petitions. The revision petitions were rejected by a common order dated June 11, 1997 holding the same to be not maint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1978] 114 ITR 404 (AP). (3) Baijnath Biswanath v. State of Assam [2003] 133 STC 300 (Gauhati); [1998] 2 GLR 474. (4) Rajendra Singh v. Superintendent of Taxes [1990] 79 STC 10 (Gauhati); [1990] 1 GLR 449. (5) Santlal Mehendi Ratta v. Commissioner of Taxes [1992] 1 GLR 197 (Gauhati). (6) Victor Cane Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [2002] 125 STC 483 (Gauhati); [2002] 2 GLR 69. (7) Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. State of Assam [2003] 131 STC 70 (Gauhati); [2003] 1 GLR 448. (8) Herbertsons Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [2003] 132 STC 597 (Gauhati); [2003] 3 GLR 214. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned State Counsel on the other hand made submissions supporting the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evising authority on the basis of his own reasoning. The order must be erroneous being not in accordance with law or having been passed in haste without any enquiry. A wrong order passed cannot be said to be erroneous. In absence of any jurisdictional error on the part of the assessing authority, it will not be open for the revisional authority to reopen an assessment already made exercising its suo motu power of revision which would naturally lead to confusion, chaos and uncertainty. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or at the behest of some other authority other than on own application of mind of the revisional authority. The power is not available merely because in the opinion of the revisional authority it is of the view tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice on that basis. Thus it appears that the revisional authority without arriving at any finding as to how the earlier assessment made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue re-determined the sale price on the above grounds of "a bit low", "under-assessed", etc., without elaborating and discussing anything as to how it was so. It also relied upon the report of the Inspector towards reassessment of the sale price. The revisional authority fell into error in relying upon the report of the Inspector in re-determining the sale price, in absence of any authentic material regarding sale price on the date of assessment. It ought not to have acted only on the basis of the report of the Inspector. It was required to act on....