Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 190 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala vs K. M. Charia Abdullah & Co on 5 October, 1964

Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Ujjal Singh Autar Singh on 1 February, 1967

It is, however, to be borne in mind that the revisional jurisdiction is not a continuation of the original proceedings. That is a basic distinction. I am, however, not inclined to take the extreme view that no additional evidence can be led in any circumstances whatsoever outside the record as it exists and is brought before the revisional authority. It is true that, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. K. M. Cheria Abdulla and Co. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 875 the additional evidence must be in aid of the revisional power and not for any extraneous purpose. Nevertheless, if a case doss arise in which the purpose for which the revisional power exists requires adduction of additional evidence, it would fetter the revisional power, as found in the Sales Tax Act, too much to lay down that additional evidence cannot be taken. If for example the process of coining to the decision is vitiated by the existence of some bias or partiality on the part of assessing or appellate authority which is not apparent from the face of the record, the illegality and impropriety has, nevertheless, taken place in arriving at the decision given. Such an illegality or impropriety would not, in my opinion, be extraneous to the process of adjudication although it would not be apparent on the face of the record. I, therefore, think that such an illegality or impropriety may be proved by additional evidence. In the case before us no such impropriety or illegality has been brought to our notice which may vitiate the process of adjudication itself. What is contended is that the additional evidence would show that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority is erroneous. In other words, the erroneous decision is said to have resulted from a lack of evidence which the department could have collected. It is not the process of adjudication in the course of which any illegality or impropriety has taken place, but it is only an instance of the inability of the department to bring within the process of adjudication what it could have brought in if it had been more diligent. Such a purpose for the adduction of additional evidence appears to me to be outside the scope of the revisional power conferred upon the revising authority by Section 10 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - M H Beg - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs Narani Stores on 17 December, 2002

12. Based on the principles laid down as above, the Full Bench considered T.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 in page 223. In that case, subsequent to the assessment order, there was a search by the Intelligence Officer, which disclosed that turnover from certain transactions had not been assessed. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the transactions and turnover disclosed on search by the Intelligence Officer. The Full Bench observed that the power exercised by the revisional authority was strictly within the scope of Section 35 of the Act ; that no question of trenching upon the assessment of escaped turnover arises in this tax revision and that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner and sustaining his power. Thus from the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 35 of the Act has got power to set aside an assessment based on materials gathered subsequent to the assessment order even to rope in the escaped turnover provided the order is vitiated by illegality; irregularity or impropriety. The attempt of Sri S. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee was only to persuade us for a reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly the decision in State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company [1965] 16 STC 875, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 383, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. [1969] 24 STC 491, State of Kerala v. K.E. Nainan [1970] 26 STC 251, State of Kerala v. M. Appukutty [1963] 14 STC 242, Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue [1976] 38 STC 1. All these decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be noted, were considered by the Full Bench. The principles laid down in the Full Bench decision were being followed by the statutory authorities under the Act for the last more than 22 years.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Ram Kanai Jamini Ranjan Pal Private Ltd. vs Member, Board Of Revenue on 10 June, 1970

4. We shall take up the question which the Board of Revenue referred to us, namely, "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in exercise of his powers Under Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the Additional Commissioner was competent to reassess the gross turnover of the petitioner by taking into consideration additional material which had not been made available to the assessing officer ?" The two relevant decisions of the Supreme Court on this point must first be noticed. One is the State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla & Co. [1965] 16 S.T.C 875 (S.C.). This decision was concerned with the Madras General Sales Tax Act and its Rules. Mr. Chakraborty for the assessee relied on the observations of Subba Rao, J., drawing the distinction between an appeal and a revision at page 879 of the report. The observations on which Mr. Chakraborty relied are as follows :
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lila Choudhury vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 13 March, 2006

7. Coining to the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, it must be noticed that the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Cheria Abdullah and Co. reported in (1965) 1 STC 875 (SC), reliance on which has been placed on behalf of the petitioner, has clearly held that while it would not be correct to say that in exercise of the revisional power, the authority would not be competent to make an enquiry beyond the record of the proceedings sought to be revised, the power to make such an enquiry must necessarily be understood, in the context of the scheme or the Act, While exercising such powers and in conducting such enquiry, the authority must not encroach upon the other corrective powers, vested in other authorities, by the provisions of the Act....
Gauhati High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - R Gogoi - Full Document

B And A Plantation And Industries Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

In the instant case, it is not the stand of the Deputy Commissioner that the primary authority did not have the jurisdiction to make the assessment or had exceeded its jurisdiction. The short and simple case of the Deputy Commissioner is that the turnover of the petitioner has escaped assessment due to concealments made by the assessee. The aforesaid facts, in my considered view, does not render the order infirm on account of any jurisdictional error. If tax has escaped assessment due to concealment, the proper recourse is to reopen the assessment under Section 18 of the Act. This is precisely what was attempted to be done but was abandoned subsequently. If on the given facts the power under Section 18 was attempted to be exercised but subsequently abandoned, it is not understood how on the same set of facts the power under Section 36 can be exercised. The powers under both the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 18 and 36 operate in two different fields and is vested into two different authorities. To permit the revisional authority to exercise power Under Section 36 in the facts of the instant case would be to permit the said authority to trench upon the powers of the primary authority under Section 18 of the Act. Such a situation has been disapproved of by the apex court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Co. [1965] 16 STC 875.
Gauhati High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 51 - I Ansari - Full Document

Babulal And Sons vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Sales ... on 17 November, 1976

14. The decisions on which reliance is placed do not, in our view, indicate anything contrary in the scheme of these two sections. It will suffice to make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H. B. Munshi , which in terms refers to the earlier decision in the case of State of Kerala v. K. M. Cheria Abdulla & Co. .
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Santalal Mehendi Ratta (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Taxes And Ors. on 9 October, 2001

If on the given facts, the power under Section 18 was attempted to be exercised but subsequently abandoned, it is not understood how on the same set of facts the power under Section 36 can be exercised. The powers under both the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, namely Sections 18 and 36 operate in two different fields and is vested into two different authorities. To permit the revisional authority to exercise power under Section 36 in the facts of the instant case would be to permit the said authority to trench upon the powers of the primary authority under Section 18 of the Act. Such a situation has been disapproved of by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company (supra).
Gauhati High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 14 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next