The X-ray and Allied Products vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sethuraman, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14th May, 1980, suo motu revising the order

of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 19th May, 1979. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, one of the items of

turnover disputed was in relation to a sum of Rs. 33,287. It was argued before him that the assessing officer had not given sufficient opportunity to

produce the remaining C or D form and the appellants herein produced D forms for Rs. 33,287 and requested that the turnover may be assessed

at concession rate of tax. With reference to this sum, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in paragraph 5 of his order has stated as follows :

At the time of hearing, the Advocate has produced D and C forms for Rs. 33,287 covering bills Nos. 965, 1010, 21, 45, 61, 69, 71 and 31 and

requests that the above turnover may be assessed at concessional rate, as the assessing officer has not given sufficient opportunity to produce the

D or C forms before him. As far as this turnover is concerned, the assessing officer is the competent authority to consider the entertainability of the

D or C forms kept by the appellants. I, therefore, remand the case back to the assessing officer for verification and for fresh disposal in respect of

the turnover of Rs. 33,287 setting aside the assessment on this turnover.

The Board came to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in saying that sufficient opportunity was not given

to the assessees by the assessing officer and therefore set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the

assessing officer. It is this order of the Board that is challenged in this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Board has misunderstood the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as

according to him, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not stated that the assessing authority had not given sufficient opportunity to the

assessees. The above extract from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would clearly go to show that the complaint of the assessees

was that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to produce the D or C forms and only on this basis, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

set aside the order of the assessing officer with reference to the turnover of Rs. 33,287. The learned counsel is not therefore right in characterising

the order of the Board as one born out of misunderstanding of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

The point now to be examined is whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in remanding the matter back to the assessing

officer. The pre-assessment notice in the present case was dated 27th October, 1978, and the matter was adjourned from time to time and

ultimately on 18th January, 1979, the assessing officer intimated the assessees that further extension of time would be granted up to 25th January,

1979, and if they failed to furnish the C form, orders would be passed without any further notice. Orders were passed on 29th January, 1979. This

is a case in which the assessees had nearly three months within which they could have produced all the relevant forms. As they did not do so, the

Board came to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in saying that sufficient time was not given to the

assessees by the assessing officer. In the circumstances, the order of the Board cannot be said to suffer from any error. The appeal is therefore

dismissed.