TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore in Revision No.41/2013/State (for the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992). 5. All these petitions are being decided by a common order and for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No.2508/15. 6. Petitioner is a limited Company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at Mumbai. Petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and selling of large number of popular Fast Moving Consumer Good like toilet soaps, washing soaps, detergents etc. The petitioner company is having a depot at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a registered dealer under the provisions of State and Central Tax/Commercial Tax Act. The petitioner is claiming to be a reputed corporate house having much magnitude of turn over and have a status of highest tax payer in the State since last so many years. 7. Petitioner has submitted in the writ petitions that all the returns in respect of the turn over in the State of Madhya Pradesh were submitted for the period from 01.04.1992 to 31.12.1993 and has paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e copies of the details and declarations already furnished by him and if such documents are furnished the same be also considered on merits. The said order was passed on 15.09.1999 by the first appellate authority. In pursuant to the above order of the appellate authority, Assistant Commissioner again considered the matter and vide order dated 29.06.2002 maintained the original order dated 24.02.1995. 9. Being dissatisfied with the fresh assessment order dated 29.06.2002, petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax along with an application for ad-interim stay. Petitioner submitted before the revisional authority that it was not necessary for him to reconstruct the whole record which was already filed with the department as a voluntary gesture and further sought time to compile parallel copies of the data/documents. Vide order dated 30.04.2003, the revision petitions were also dismissed by the revisional authority. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revisions, petitioner preferred four writ petitions before this Court in respect of four different orders of the revisional authority. By a common order dated 14.05.2013, all the four writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Revisional Authority within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Revisional Authority. The petitioner shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 26.06.2013. 10. Immediately after the order passed by this Court, petitioner written a letter to the Additional Commissioner dated 26.08.2013 in which again he requested to the authority to procure the relevant "B" File of the case. Although this Court has directed the petitioner to submit duplicate declaration and supporting material, however, as contended by the petitioner, along with the letter (Annexure P/14 & P/15) he has submitted numerous documents for perusal and consideration of the revisional authority. 11. That vide order dated 27.08.2013 the revisional authority i.e. Commissioner, Commercial Tax has dismissed all the revisions filed by the petitioner on the ground that photocopies of the commercial Bills of Lading do not contain clearance certificate of the Customs Department. The revisional authority has further held that as the certificate of clearance and the photocopies are not legible, the same cannot be accepted. In spite of that petitioner has again and again insisted for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24.02.1995 (Annexure P/3) and passed the final order. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has considered number of times the grounds raised by the petitioner. Every time the petitioner was insisting for procurement of "B" File which was admittedly not available in the department, hence finally this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to submit the duplicate declarations and supporting material before the revisional authority. Even after order of this High Court, the petitioner was insisting for procurement of relevant B File. Petitioner though submitted duplicate copies of the documents but as per the revisional authorities these documents were either not legible or do not contain the certificate of clearance by the Customs Department. The petitioner has not controverted these facts in memo of writ petition. The petitioner has not pleaded that finding recorded by the revisional authority is perverse. The revisional authority in exercise of its powers has scrutinized the documents and rejected the same. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision of the compet....