TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1975 by the Assessee. 2. The assessee/appellant had referred a question for determination by the Commissioner under Section 49. The question was whether the goods and articles sold by it, i.e., Cooker Hoods/Kitchen Chimneys were classifiable as electrical or electronic air purifiers under Entry 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The assessee/appellant had contended that it sold two types of appliances; one used a ducting mode whereby air passed through without removing the impurity from the air sucked; the second variety of goods sold by it interalia sucked out air and passed it through a process to recirculate it back into the kitchen. On overall appreciation of the circumstances, the Commissioner determined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O could not have virtually taken a fresh opinion. 5. The learned counsel relied upon the text of Section 24 in the decision of this Court in Shruti Fasteners v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax (CVAT) 2015 SCC Online Del 12952 and Hoshyar Singh Suresh Chandra Sarees Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, New Delhi and Another (2004) 136 S.T.C 173 (Delhi). 6. Counsel for the respondent/revenue urges that the assessee cannot complain or say that the STO lacked jurisdiction to issue reassessment notice highlighting that the present writ petition was filed more than a year after the Tribunal's decision. Learned counsel submits that when notice was issued under Section 24 during the remand proceedings, the assessee did not complain therefore it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led some material from the assessing officer so as to enable him to reopen the case. In view of the law which we have discussed above and other decisions it is clear that, merely because the assessing officer has changed his opinion, the assessing officer cannot call upon the assessee for reassessment and cannot issue coercive notice." 8. This Court approved the decision in Jagdish Cold Storage Ice Factory vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. ILR (2007) Supp.(4) Delhi 139 wherein it was held that recording of reasons is essential before reopening of an assessment under Section 24. It was further held that the AO cannot review a completed assessment mechanically as it would have a serious consequence on the assessee. The Court approved....