ASHOK LEYLAND Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, Ashok Leyland Ltd. , is a firm with its factory at Ennore, within the state of Madras, where it assembles motor cars, and with an elaborate organisation spread Over several States for the sale of those cars and their accessories. In the assessment year 1952-53, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the firm to sales-tax on a turn-over of about 30 Jackhs of rupees. He was of the view that turnover of about 111 lakhs was not liable to be taxed under the act. The Commercial Tax Officer took up the matter 'suo motu' in exercise of the revisional powers vested in him by Section 12 of the Madras General Sales-tax act. He overruled the objection of the assessee, that he had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment, and eventually he held that a turnover of about 43 lakhs was also liable to be taxed.

(2.) THE assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also negatived the contention, of the assessee, that the Commercial Tax Officer had n jurisdiction to revise the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax officer. Of the turnover, the liability to tax which was in dispute, the Tribunal held that about 121/2 lakhs alone fell within the scope of Article 286 (2) of the Constitution. The Tribunal held that the balance of the turnover was on sales completed by delivery within the State to the agents of the buyers, who were no doubt resident outside the State, and that these sales were not in the course of Inter-State trade, within the meaning of Article 286 (2) of the Constitution. It was-the correctness of that decision of the Tribunal that the assessee challenged by a petition presented under Section 12-B of the Act.

(3.) WE are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in negativing the claim of the asses see-petitioner, that the Commercial Tax Officer exceeded his-jurisdiction in the proceedings he took against the assessee under Section 12 of the Act. The contention of the assessee both before the Tribunal and before us was, that the commercial Tax Officer's revisional authority did not extend to an inspection of material not considered by the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax officer. It was on the basis of the accounts or the ab-stracts of the accounts that the petitioner furnished that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer came to the conclusion, that a turnover of about 111 lakhs of rupees was not liable to be taxed under the Act. Whether that view was correct was what the Commercial Tax officer had to examine. That he had the undoubted jurisdiction to do. What was the material that the Commercial Tax Officer could, examine when exercising his revisional powers was the question. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee did not repeat before us the extreme contention he had apparently put forward before the Tribunal, that the Commercial tax Officer could not look beyond the assessment order of the Deputy Commercial tax Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner complained that in addition to the material placed before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the Commercial Tax officer called upon the petitioner-assessee to produce records in its possession. That, he contended, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer.