Decided on September 28,1992



SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. - (1.)THE appellant deals in cast iron goods and also carries out works contracts. He was a dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, X Circle, Hyderabad for the year 1977-78. In the said year the Commercial Tax Officer proposed to assess sales tax on a sum of Rs. 5,79,042. 40 which the assessee claimed as receipts from works contracts. In support of his claim no material was placed before the assessing authority. Therefore, the same was assessed to tax. The second item which was taxed was the gross profit at 25 per cent. of the turnover. The assessee claimed that it imported certain goods from outside the country which were sold along with the locally procured or purchased goods. But on this aspect also, no material was placed. Therefore the assessing authority adopted a gross profit of 25 per cent. to arrive at the sale value of the imported goods. Dissatisfied with the order of assessment, the assessee went in revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The revisional authority granted the relief in respect of the said amount of Rs. 5,79,042. 40 accepting the plea that it represents receipts from the works contracts. In so far as the second item relating to the profits is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the rate from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent. This order of a the revisional authority was revised by the Commissioner under section 20 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, by order dated January 8, 1986. The missioner held that there was no material before the revisional authority, viz. , the Deputy Commissioner to treat the sum of Rs. 5,79,042. 40 as receipts from the works contracts and therefore there was no case for interference by the Deputy Commissioner and he, therefore, set aside that order. With regard to reduction of profits from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent. , the Commissioner held that the Deputy Commissioner did not bother to examine the trading accounts to ascertain the correct gross profit and that no trading accounts were found in the revision file maintained in the office. It was also observed that the assessee did not file the trading accounts before the assessing authority and so by reducing the profits from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent. , the Deputy Commissioner had only substituted his judgment for that of the assessing authority without relevant material or without satisfying that the order suffers from any illegality or impropriety. He therefore set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It is the correctness of this order of the Commissioner dated January 8, 1986 that is assailed in this special appeal.
(2.)ON a perusal of the order under appeal, we are convinced that the order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality. There was no adequate justification for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere in revision in the absence of any material and accept the plea that the amount of Rs. 5,79,042. 40 represents receipts from the works contracts. For interference with the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner should find illegality or impropriety in the order proposed to be revised. In the absence of any such illegality or impropriety, in exercise of revisional power the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to substitute his judgment for the judgment of the Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority.
For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the special appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.