TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levied under section 45A of the Act for attempted evasion of tax on the suppressed value of goods estimated at Rs. 2,10,000. Even though inspection was carried out and stock noticed was recorded in the inspection report, that is mahazar, the Deputy Commissioner in the revision filed by the petitioner against the penalty order observed that there could be omission on the part of the inspecting team to notice availability of physical stock of timber, and therefore he reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the then Member, Board of Revenue, took up the matter in suo motu, revision under section 45A(5) of the Act and reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide exhibit P10 order by which he restored the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for 1990-91 modified in appeal with direction to make fresh assessment. The order so passed, exhibit P17, is also under challenge in this original petition on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass orders under section 35(1) of the Act on an issue fairly covered by exhibit P14 order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The challenge against exhibit P10 order is basically on the ground of limitation. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing the penalty, namely, exhibit P7, was issued on April 20, 1993 and exhibit P10 order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, revising exhibit P7 was issued only on September 23, 1997 after a period of four years. According to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act was passed more than ten years back. Even after noticing a of delay of 10 years in passing a suo motu revisional order, this court did not cancel the revisional order on grounds of limitation, but still remanded the case to the Commissioner to consider whether there is reasonable cause for delay. This court inter alia observed as follows: "8. We should say that no question of bar of limitation arises in suo motu revision proceedings initiated under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-Tax Act. The Act does not provide any time-limit within which the proceeding should be initiated. The power is vested in very wide terms. It is trite law that such statutory power must be exerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such orders on Revenue appreciated and then proceedings are taken reversing orders that are found prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. I feel having regard to the statutory responsibilities the Commissioner has to discharge under various tax laws, apart from his administrative work, the Legislature deliberately did not provide any strict time-frame for him to exercise suo motu revisional powers. What the Legislature has consciously avoided cannot be imposed by this court by judicial decision. It is in this context that this court has held that a revisional order should be passed within a reasonable time, and reasonable time will not be a static period and will vary from case to case. The very fact that in the first decision cited a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hibit P10 order was based on data gathered on inspection conducted in the place of business of the petitioner. The shop inspection report, or the mahazar, is signed by the Managing Partner, who has admitted the details of physical stock noted therein. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision filed against the penalty order on a mere assumption without any basis that physical stock remaining in the business premises might have escaped the notice of the inspecting team. The Member, Board of Revenue, rightly held that this finding of the Deputy Commissioner is without any basis and contrary to the date recorded in the shop inspection report signed by the managing partner. Therefore on merits I find the order of the Deputy Commissioner was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) vide exhibit P14 dated April 25, 1994 is prejudicial to interests of the Revenue and therefore he set aside the same. Counsel for the petitioner contended that exhibit P17 is without any authority of law as the Deputy Commissioner in-charge of the District has no authority to set aside an order in appeal issued by the appellate authority modifying the assessment. I am in complete agreement with this argument, because the basis of and extent of addition to the returned turnover was the issue directly involved in the appeal and decided by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by modifying the assessment vide exhibit P7 order. The remedy for the officer, the Deputy Commissioner of the District, or the Commissioner was either to request the a....