- (1.)THIS a revision application under Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act against the order dated 15th July, 1966 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer. The facts of the case are that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jhalawar in his assessment order dated 3rd September, 1964 raised a few points as follows : "on checking of the books it is noted that the firm imported goods and sold to a firm of Bhawanimandi and others. In the purchase account, the firm has not added the fare and other expenses which amount to Rs. 16983/- and in the sale no profit is added. The sale memos issued without adding profit on purchases. The dealing was done mostly on whole sale basis so I estimate Rs. 5567/- the profit @ 3% on the total purchases of kerosene oil for Rs. 185520/- (including above expenses ). THIS amount is taxable. Further, on checking of the 'c' forms it is noted that the 'c' forms were given of more amount while in the books less amount is written. Such less amount on calculation comes to Rs. 1936/ -. The dealer stated that the expenses amount was added in 'c' forms but not in books. I do not agree with it and this amount is also added to the taxable turnover. "
(2.)ON an appeal by the firm against this assessment order on the above mentioned points, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes Department accepted the appeal. The present revision application list the following grounds for revision : (1) "that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Ajmer erred in ordering refund of tax on the turnover of Rs. 5567/-, (2) That the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Ajmer erred in ordering refund of tax on the turnover of Rs. 1936/-, (3) That the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Ajmer erred in ordering that the turnover of Rs. 16983/- was not taxable and further erred in ordering refund of tax there in. "
The order dated 15th July, 1966 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is a fairly detailed one. Regarding the first point mentioned in the revision application, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) himself test-checked some entries in the khata and the bill books of the firm and found that the sale memos were issued after adding the amount of profit on the purchases of kerosene oil. Therefore, according to him, there was no question of adding another 3% national profit.

It is established from record that these particular transactions of kerosene oil related to whole-sale trade and the material was supplied direct from the M/s Indo-Burma Petrolium Co. Ltd. , to the various dealers in Ramganjmandi, through this firm M/s Jamnadas Vithaldas & Co. , working as agent, for which they make out what they were getting a commission of 1/2%. It is not understood, how the Commercial Taxes Officer has arrived at the figure of the 3% profit. In any case, he has given no basis of such profit in whole-sale supplies of kerosene oil. He could have even enquired from the Oil Company which was supplying this oil and found out the commission of the firm M/s Jamnadas Vithaldas & Co. The matter should be easy of verification in such a well regulated commodity. In any case, we find no reason to disregard the findings of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), especially when he has stated to have himself test-checked certain entries in the khata and the bill-books of the firm.

As to the second point of the revision application, again the position appears to have been satisfactorily explained by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that certain amendments were made in the invoices issued by the Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. , to the firm and it was due to this that discrepancy arose between 'c' forms and the account-books. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has further stated that this discrepancy in the amounts was also rectified by the firm, by making suitable amendments in the counter-foils of the 'c' forms in possession of the non-applicants.

As to the third point of the revision application, again it is explained by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the freight charges and other expenses were borne by the suppliers M/s Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. , and passed on straight to the distributors while the firm M/s Jamnadas Vithaldas & Co. acted only as an agent. Accordingly, this amount of freight should not be included in the firm's turnover for tax purposes. It is also explained that the distributors being at the same place as the non-applicants, the non-applicants incurred no other expenditure in passing the bulk consignments of kerosene oil.

After going through the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer dated the 15th July, 1966 and hearing the counsel for the parties, we dp not find even the slightest reason to discredit the findings arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) particularly on facts. The applicant's counsel could not even point out, what to say "of establishing, any defect in the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) we, therefore, reject the revision application.

It would be worth mentioning here that the grounds of revision in this particular case, appear to be rather flimsy and not well considered. It is normally expected that before filing a revision application, the Commercial Taxes Department should have carefully examined and appreciated the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) appealed against and only if a reasonably convincing case is made out that the order is defective, then alone it should be challenged. We are not sure whether such an examination and appreciation of the order impugned before us, was carried out in this case. Further in such cases grounds for revision should specifically indicate as to how exactly the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has erred and on what facts or on what point of law he has given wrong findings. It is not enough just to say in a routine manner that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has erred. A copy of this may be forwarded to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur for information. .