Deendayal Mahesh Kumar vs The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-I and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing. The appellant is an assessee, dealing in purchase and sale of cottonseeds. For the assessment year 2002-2003 statement of returns of turnover was filed before the respondent 3 and sought for refund of excess tax paid by him for the aforesaid assessment year. Respondent 3 rejected the claim of the appellant for refund.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the respondent 2-the Appellate Authority, which appeal came to be allowed. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent exercising the suo motu powers vested in him u/s 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, initiated suo motu revision, which has been allowed by him as per Annexure-C, dated 24-9-2009. The only reason assigned is at para 8 of the order, which reads as hereunder:

The assessment and appeal records were re-verified as to whether any modification is required for revisional proposal. But it is seen that the revision proposal is properly made on the basis of facts and law. In the circumstances the proposal to set aside the appeal order is erroneous in law insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Government Revenue is confirmed.

The respondent 3 has allowed the revision and restored the order of the Assessing Authority by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

On perusal of the entire order passed by the 3rd respondent, more particularly paragraph 8, we are of the opinion that without application of mind, without assigning any reasons, allowed the suo motu revision initiated by him, by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority. When a suo motu revision is initiated, if the 3rd respondent is of the opinion, the order of the Appellate Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, it is for him to assign reasons for setting aside the same. But without doing so, he has passed the order. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion, without framing the question of law and answering the same, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the 3rd respondent and remand the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law by giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.