Sournavinayaga Engineers (P) Ltd. vs State of Tamil Nadu

K. Raviraja Pandian J.

The revision is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Additional Bench) dated January 6, 1999 made

in T. A. No. 747 of 1994.

The petitioner was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,25,282.59. Subsequently based on the result of the inspection

conducted on July 10, 1992 by the enforcement wing officers, the revision of assessment was made u/s 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax

Act, 1959 and the taxable turnover was re-fixed at Rs. 37,85,470 and penalty of Rs. 3,36,392 was also levied. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Chennai. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted the relief in

respect of turnover of Rs. 7,48,200 and reduced the penalty in a sum of Rs. 2,75,907. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred further

appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed before us in this

revision by raising the following question of law :

Whether the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming the levy of tax by the assessing authority on the turnover of Rs.

13,46,187 when originally the assessing authority by his order dated July 28,1992 by accepting the form F and other records allowed the claim of

exemption made u/s 6A of the CST Act, 1956 ?

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

The said question of law has been answered by the apex court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2004]

134 STC 473 wherein it has been held as follows (at pages 475 and 476 of STC) :

Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as amended provides for a conclusive proof, except on a limited ground. The order of an authority

u/s 6A is conclusive for all practical purposes, and the reopening of an assessment is permissible only on limited grounds, such as fraud, collusion,

misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or giving or furnishing of false particulars, since in such cases, the order would be vitiated in law.

When an order passed in terms of sub-section (2) of section 6A is found to be illegal or void ab initio or otherwise voidable, the assessing authority

derives jurisdiction to direct reopening of the proceedings and not otherwise. Mere change in the opinion of the assessing authority or to have a

relook at the matter would not confer any jurisdiction upon him to get the proceedings reopened. Discovery of new material, although it may form

a ground, by itself may not be a ground for reopening the proceedings unless by reason of such discovery it turns out that a jurisdictional error had

been committed.

In this case, there is no finding recorded by any of the authorities that the conclusion originally reached by the assessing officer was based on

mis-representation or collusion. In the absence of any finding to that effect, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok

Uyland Ltd. v State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2004] 134 STC 473, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the same is set aside in

respect of the turnover in a sum of Rs. 13,46,187 and the penalty in respect of the said turnover is also deleted. The tax case revision is allowed to

that extent. No costs.