- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes Jaipur dated 31-10-64 in respect of the assessment of M/s Sanwalram Satyanarain of Ramgarh Sethan (Distt. Sikar) for the year 1962-63. Although several grounds were mentioned in the revision application, yet the learned Government Advocate pressed only two grounds before me.
(2.) IN the first place he referred to the order of the Dy. Commissioner with regard to the sale of chillies. The opposite party urged before the Deputy Commissioner that they had shown these chillies in the turnover and had paid tax on the same. Therefore, it was wrong to have it taxed again. The Deputy Commissioner accepted this argument. The record, however, does not show whether this fact was verified by the Deputy Commissioner from the record of not. It is now urged before me that before this order of the Deputy Commissioner goes un-challenged a verification should be ordered. This is a very reasonable request and I have no hesitation in accepting. The second point urged before me relates to the penalty of Rs. 20/- imposed by the assessing authority under sec. 16 (l) (g) for the irregular use of Form S. T. 17 made by the assessee and shifting the amount involved to taxable turnover. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the assessing authority in this respect on the ground that the assessee had made the purchase as a commission agent on behalf of his principals, namely, the Ramgarh Tel Utpadak Sahkari Samiti. The Deputy Commissioner examined the record and felt satisfied that the purchase was made by the assessee as a commission agent. A recital of the order of the Deputy Commissioner read with the order the assessing authority, however, presents a different picture. It is stated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner that the oilseed was purchased by the opposite party from M/s Chandanmal Fatheraj of Merta on behalf of one Subhan and the same was in turn sold to the Ramgarh Tel Utpadak Sahkari Samiti. Now this Subhan is apparently an unregistered dealer. As will be found from the order of the assessing authority it was admitted by the assessee that he had issued form S. T. 17 for this transaction between the Merta firm and Subhan which is irregular. It was for this irregularity that the assessing authority imposed the penalty as stated above and directed this amount to be shifted to taxable turnover. Apparently, the Deputy Commissioner has ignored this aspect of the case. He has been influenced by the fact that the assessee was acting on behalf of Sahkari Samiti and was, therefore, their commission agent. But this defence would have operated successfully if he had made the purchases directly. I have not been able to appreciate how assessee can escape the consequences having issued S. T. 17 in favour of Subhan who is an unregistered dealer. I, therefore, think this is a fit case in which to accept the revision petition and to order a further enquiry. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order in respect of the above two items and remand it to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, for further enquiry and fresh decision in accordance with the law and the observations made above, after hearing both the parties. .;