http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: ARAM KANAI JAMINI RANJAN PAL PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1976

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1545            1976 SCR  110  1976 SCC  (3) 363

ACT:      Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941-S. 20(3)-Scope of- Additional  Commissioner  reassessed  turnover  taking  into consideration material  not available to assessing authority competent.

HEADNOTE:      Section 20(3)  of the  Bengal Finance  (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 provides  that the Commissioner, Upon application or of his own  motion, may  revise why  assessment made  or  order passed under  the Act  or the  Rules thereunder  by a person appointed under  s. 3 to assist him and the Board of revenue may,  in  like  manner,  revise  any  order  passed  by  the Commissioner.      At the  time of assessment of the appellant’s sales tax return the  Commercial    Tax  officer  enhanced  the  gross turnover and  charged the  enhanced amount  to  tax  and  in addition imposed  a penalty. On appeal under s. 20(1) of the Act, the  Assistant Commissioner  reduced the enhancement of gross    turnover  is as  well as the penalty. The appellant filed a  revision application  before  the  Commissioner  of Commercial Taxes. Before the filing of revision application, under orders  of the  Additional Commissioner an enquiry was conducted by  a Commercial Tax officer who detected numerous discrepancies of  a serious  nature in  the accounts. On the basis of  this report,  the Additional Commissioner enhanced the assessment by a huge sum and charged the entire enhanced amount to  tax. On further revision to the Board of Revenue, the appellant  contended that  while exercising his power of revision under  s. 20(3) of the Act, the Commissioner had to confine himself  to an  examination of  the mate rial before the assessing  officer and  could not  take additional facts into consideration which plea was rejected by the Board.      The High  Court  held  that  (1)  under  s.  20(3)  the Additional Commissioner  as competent  to reassess the gross turnover by  taking into consideration additional   material which had  not been  made available to the assessing officer and  (ii)   the  Additional  Commissioner  was  vested  with authority under.  s. 20(3)  read with  r. 80A to rely on the report under  s. 14(1)  initiated long  before the filing of the revision petition.      Dismissing the appeal,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

^      HELD: The  Commissioner or Additional Commissioner can. in exercise  of his revisional power, re-assess the turnover and while  doing so,  rope in  the escaped items of turnover and thereby enhance the gross turnover [116G]      (1) The  word "Revise", the dictionary meaning of which is ’to  re-examine, to  review, to  correct or  to amend the fault", is  not hedged  or. qualified  by any  condition  or limitation.  The   controlling  expressions  like  "for  the purpose  of   satisfying  himself  as  to  the  legality  or propriety of  the order  passed ed"  or "regularity  of flue proceedings" which  are susceptible  of being  construed  as restricting the  revisional power  to  rectification  of  an illegality or  impropriety of  the order or of’ irregularity in the  proceeding are  also not  be found  therein There is also nothing  in the  Bengal Sales  Tax Rules.  1941 to  cir circumscribe or  limit the  power.  It  is  not,  therefore, unreasonable to  infer  that  the  amplitude  of  the  power conferred on the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is more  extensive than  the power  exercisable by  the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It can be eerily equated  with the  power exercisable be the appellate authority in  an appeal  under sub. . 2 of s. 20 of the Act. [115F-H] 111      Indira Sohanlal  v. Custodian of Evacuee Property Delhi and Others  A.I.R. 1956  S.C. 77:  East Asiatic  Co. (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madras 7 S.T.C. 299, State of Kerala v. K. M.  Cheria Abdulla  & Co.  [1965] 16 S.T.C. 875, Swastik. Oil Mills  Ltd. v. H. B. Munshi Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Bombay  [1968] 2  S.C.R. 492,  State of  Madras v.  The Madura Knitting Co Ltd. (1959) 10 S.T.C. 155, referred to.      Deputy  Commissioner  of  Agricultural  Income-Tax  and Sales Tax  , Quilon and Anr. v. Chanalakshmi Vilas     Cashe w Co.  (1969) 24  S.T.C. 491,  The State  of  Kerala  v.  M. Appukutty (1963) 14 S.T.C. 242 and Commissioner. (of income. tax, Bombay  v. Shapoorji  Pallonji Mistry  (1962) 44 I.T.R. 891, distinguished.      (2) on  a combined  reading of s. 20(3) and rule 80A of the Rules it is immaterial whether the Commissioner proceeds to make the enquiry before or after tho filing of a revision petition so  long he  affords to  the person  likely  to  be adversely affected  by his  action an  opportunity of  being hearer [119 H]      In the  instant case, the Commercial Tax officer called upon to  make on  enquiry, gave  adequate opportunity to the appellant to  explain the  discrepancies And  the suspicious circumstances, relating to the alleged suppression bn of the turnover and  the Additional Commissioner gave notice to the former and  furnished him with a full copy of the report. It cannot  be   said  that   the  Commercial  Tax  officer  and Additional Commissioner  committed any  illegality or breach of any  statutory provision  or  rule  or  transgressed  the limits of their jurisdiction. 1120 A-C

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos.  669 and 670 of 1971.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  11th June,  1970 of  the Calcutta  High Court  in Sales Tax reference No. 395 of 1969.      S. T.  Desai, H.  S. Parihar  and 1. N. Shroff, for the Appellant. E

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General, Sukumar mar Basu and G. 5. Chatterjee for respondent in C.A. 669/71.      Leila  Seth,   Sukumar  Basu,  G.  S.  Chatterjee,  for Respondent in C.A. 670/71.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      JASWANT SINGH, J.-These two appeals Nos. 669 and 670 of 1971 by  special leave  from the  common judgment dated June lt, 1970  of  the  High  Court  at  Calcutta  in  Sales  Tax References Nos.  395 of  1965; and  521 of  1967 which raise important questions  as to  the  scope  and  extant  of  the revisional power  of  the  Commissioner,  Commercial  Taxes, under section  20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act;, 1941 (Act VI of 1941) (hereinafter referred to as the Act’), and shall be disposed of by this judgment.      The  facts  giving  rise  to  these  appeals  are:  The appellant which  is a  Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is registered as a dealer under  the Act  submitted   a return  for 4  quarters ending     with  the   last  date   of  Chaitra,  1364  B.S. (corresponding to the period commencing with April 14, 1957, And ending with April 13, 1958) showing a gross turnover of 112 sales of  Rs. 35,93,402/-  By his  order dated  December  7, 1959, the Commercial Tax officer, Rajakatra Charge, rejected the appellant’s  books of  accounts on the ground of absence of purchase  and sale  vouchers and  of stock statements and enhanced the  gross turnover  shown by  the appellant by Rs. 50,000/- and  charged the  entire  enhanced  amount  to  tax subject to  deduction under  section 5(2)(be  of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under section 11(1) of the Act.  On appeal  under section  20(1) of  the  Act,  the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Burrabazar Circle, by  his   order  dated   September  10,  1960,  reduced  the enhancement of  gross turnover  from  Rs.  50,000/-  lo  Rs. 25,000/- and  the penalty from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/-. Not satisfied with  this  reduction,  the  appellant  moved  The Commissioner, Commercial  Taxes, West  Bengal,  in  revision under section  20(3) of‘  the Act  on November  10, 1960.  I before  the  filing  of  the  said  revision  petition,  the Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, to whom power under section 14(1) of the  11 Act has been duly delegated started an enquiry  on January  20, 1960  to the  and served  on the appellant a  notice dated October 25, 1960 to the  following effect:-           "You  are   hereby   directed   to   furnish   the      undersigned with  the serial  Nos. Of  the  cash  memos      printed by you in 1363 B.S., 1364 B.S., 1365 B.S., 1366      B.S. and  1367 B.S. The names of the suppliers of these      memos relevant  bills Nos.  and dates, amount, dates of      payment  and   modes  of  l  payment  also  are  to  be      indicated. I           The information may be supplied to the undersigned      on 31st October, 1960 at 4 p.m. positively."      In response  to  the  notice,  the  appellant  appeared before the  Commercial Tax  Officer, who  after hearing  the former and  examining the  cash  memos  and  other  material submitted a  report of  the investigation made by him to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Section observing inter alia that two original cash memos issued by the appellant bearing serial No.  30727-26 dated  January  24  for  Rs.  69.50  in respect of  sale of  Banarsi Saree  and No.  31310-37  dated December 25, 1966 for Rs. 62.20 in respect of sale of ready- made garments  were not properly recorded in the appellant’s books of  accounts and  records and that on reference to the appellant’s books  of accounts  and cash  memos, it had been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

found that  cash memo  No. 30727-26 was issued in respect of mill-made cloth  for Rs. 11.75 on August 18, 1964 and not in respect of  Banarsi saree  for Rs.  69.50 an  January 24 and cash memo  No. 31310-37  was issued  in respect  of sale  of mill-made cloth  for Rs.  9.37 and not in respect of sale of already-made garments for Rs. 62.20 on December 25, 1966. He also observed  in his report that in cash memo No. 31310-37, the date  appeared to  have been tampered with by subsequent insertion of  the numerals  "66" after the date of issue and that the  actual date  appear ed  to be December 25 and that the appellant  had not  been able  to furnish a satisfactory explanation  with   regard  to   these  discrepancies.   The Commercial Tax officer further stated in his report that his investigation revealed that the appellant got duplicate sets of 1,00,000 113 cash memos  bearing serial  Nos. 2850  to 29500 and 30501 to 31500 printed  and supplied  by M/s Blackwoods India Limited and did  not record  sales to  the extent of Rs. 30,00,000/- which in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  to  the  contrary appeared to be entirely taxable. This report was received by the Additional  Commissioner, Commercial  Taxes,  while  the aforesaid revision  petition was  still pending  before him. he, thereupon gave the following notice to the appellant:-           "on discovery  of fresh  materials, as reported by      the Commercial  Tax officer,  Central Section,  in  his      report dated  27-12-60 (copy enclosed), it appears that      you  have   suppressed  sales   "estimated  to  be  Rs.      30,00,000 in respect of the assessment of four quarters      ending Chaitra  1364 B.S.  The above  revision petition      which has been filed before me is against the appellate      order in respect of the assessment for the said period.      It also  appears  that  sales  to  the  extent  of  Rs.      30,00,000  (estimated)   escaped  taxation   from   the      original assessment and consequently from the Assistant      Commissioner’s  appellate  order.  The  above  revision      petition will  be heard  by me on 5-10-61 at 11.30 a.m.      and  the   report  dated  27-12-60,  submitted  by  the      Commercial  Tax   officer,  Central  Section,  will  be      considered at  the time  of  hearing  of  the  revision      petition. You  should, therefore,  appear before  me on      that date  at the  hour fixed  either in person or by a      duly instructed  agent to  represent your case, failing      which the  matter will  be decided ex-parte without any      further reference to you."      In reply  to  the  notice,  the  appellant  wrote  back denying that  it had  any transaction  with  M/s  Blackwoods India Ltd. in relation to the printing of the duplicate sets of the cash memos in question and stating inter alia that on the matter  being referred  to the later, they could not say from whom  actually, the  order in question was received nor could they  give any  relevant particulars.  It was  further added by  the appellant  that the  proposed  enhancement  of gross and  taxable sales  by Rs. 30,00,000/- was unjustified and unwarranted.      The Additional  Commissioner disposed  of the  revision petition be  enhancing the  assessment by Rs. 20,00,000/- as against the  admitted gross  turnover of Rs. 35,93,402/- and charged the entire enhanced amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to tax subject to deduction under section 5 (2) (b) of the Act,      The appellant  thereupon took  the  matter  in  further revision to  the Board  of Revenue,  West Bengal  contending that  the   conclusions  arrived   at  by   the   Additional Commissioner, Commercial  Taxes were  wholly unwarranted and that while  exercising his  power of  revision under section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

20(3) of the Act, the Commissioner had to confine himself to the examination of the material before the Assessing officer and could  not take additional facts into consideration. The Board  negatived  both  the  contentions  and  rejected  the revision  application.   Thereupon  the  appellant  made  an application to  the Board  under section  21(1) of  the  Act requesting that the points of law arising 10-833SCI/76 114 from its  decision be  referred for  decision  to  the  High Court. Although  at the  hearing  of  the  application,  the appellant stressed  that reference  be made on three points, the Board  allowed the application in part and referred only the following  question of  law for  decision  to  the  High Court:-           Whether on  the Facts  and  circumstances  of  the      case, in  5 exercise  of his powers under section 20(3)      of the  Bengal  Financc  (Sales  Tax)  Act,  1941,  the      Additional Commissioner   was competent to reassess the      gross  turnover   of  the  petitioner  by  taking  into      consideration additional  material which  had not  been      made available to the assessing officer"      The appellant  did not  rest content  with this limited reference and  made an  application under  sub-sections 2(b) and (3)  of section  21 of  the Act  to the High Court which directed the  Board to submit for its decision The following further question of law:-           "Whether on  the facts  admitted or  found by  the      Tribunals     below,  the  Additional  Commissioner  of      Commercial Taxes  was  vested  with  the  authority  or      jurisdiction, under  sub-section (3)  of section  20 of      the Bengal  Financc (Sales  Tax) Act,  1941, read  with      rule 80A  of the  Rules framed  thereunder to  admit or      rely on  the purported report, dated December 27, 1960,      of The  Commercial Tax  officer of the Central Section,      pursuant  to  the  enquiry,  under  subsection  (1)  of      section 14  of the  said Act, initiated long before The      filing of  the revision  petition in  question  by  the      petitioner before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,      West Bengal ?"      The Board  thereupon referred  the above  quoted second question of law as well to The High Court for its decision.      After hearing  The appellant  and the Revenue, the High Court by  its common  judgment dated  June 11, 1970 answered both the  aforesaid questions  in the affirmative. Aggrieved by this  judgment of  the High  Court, the appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.      Appearing for  the appellant, Mr. Desai has strenuously urged  that   the  revisional   power  of   the   Additional Commissioner under  section   20(3) of the Act was a limited one and he was not competent to act as an original assessing authority and  reassess the  gross turn  over by taking into consideration  the   additional  material  comprising  fresh sources of  revenue which was not available to the Assessing officer.  He   has  further   urged  that   the   Additional Commissioner, could  not admit  or rely  on the report dated December 27,  1960, of  the Commercial  Tax officer, Central Section, based on the enquiry under section 14(1) of the Act which was  initiated long before The filing  of The revision application before  the Commissioner,  Commercial     Taxes. West Bengal. 115      Though both  these contentions  are inextricably linked up, we shall deal with them separately. Turning to the first contention, we  wish to  make it  clear that  the scope  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

ambit of  the revisional jurisdiction varies from statute to statute and  it is difficult to make general observations in regard thereto. For ascertaining the true scope, content and ambit of  the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner or the  Additional   Commissioner,  as  the  case  may  be,  of Commercial Taxes  under the  Act, it  is necessary to notice section 20  thereof which  in so  far as is material for the purpose of these appeals stood thus at the relevant time:-           "20(3). Subject to such rules as may be prescribed      and    for  reasons to  be  recorded  in  writing,  the      Commissioner upon  application or of his own motion may      revise any assess   made or order passed under this Act      or the  rules thereunder  by a  person appointed  under      section 3  to assist him, and subject as aforesaid, the      Board of  Revenue may, in like manner, revise any order      passed by the Commissioner  :           Provided that  before rejecting  g any application      for the  revision of any such order the Commissioner or      the Board  of  Revenue,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall      consider  it   and  shall   record  reasons   for  such      rejection.:           Provided further  that no application for revision      shall  lie  to  the  Commissioner  in  respect  of  any      assessment if  an appeal  lies under sub-section (1) to      the Commissioner in respect of such assessment           (5) Before  any order is passed under this section      which is  likely to  affect any  person adversely, such      person shall  be given  reasonable opportunity of being      heard."      The section  as extracted  above is very widely worded. The word  ’revise’ occurring therein (which in dictionary is describe as meaning to ’reexamine, to review, to correct, or to amend  the fault’)  is not  hedged or  qualified  by  any condition or  limitation. The  controlling expressions  like ’for the  purpose of  satisfying himself  as to the legality Or’ propriety  of the  order passed’  or ’regularity  of the proceeding’ which     are susceptible  of being construed as restricting the  reversional power  to rectification  of  an illegality or impropriety of the order or of irregularity in the proceeding  are also  not to  be found therein. There is also  nothing   in  the   Bengal  Sales   Tax  Rules,   1941 (hereinafter called  ’the Rules’)  to circumscribe  or limit the power.  It is not, therefore, unreasonable to infer that the amplitude  of the power conferred on the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is more extensive than the power exercisable by  the High Court under section 115 OF the Code of Civil  Procedure. In  fact, it can be easily equated with the power  exercisable by  the  appellate  authority  in  an appeal under  sub-section (2)  of section  20 of the Act. We are fortified  in this  view by  the following  observations made by  this Court  in Indira  Sohanial   v.  custodian  of Evacuee Property Delhi and others(1).      (1) A T R. 1956 S. C. 77. 116           "Section 27  is very  wide in  its  terms  and  it      cannot be  construed as being subject to any limitation      such as  filing of  an appeal.  Nor can  the  scope  of      revisional  powers  be  confined  only  to  matters  of      jurisdiction or  illegal lithe, because under s. 27 the      Custodian General, can exercise   revisional powers for      the purpose  of satisfying  himself as to "the legality      or propriety" of any order of the Custodian-      The following  observations made  by Ramaswami,  J.  in East Asiatic  Co. (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madras(1) are also relevant  :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

         "The purposes  of this Act are two fold, viz., the      levy  of  a  general  tax  on  the  sale  of  goods  to      supplement the  lost revenues  and  for  promoting  the      general public  good; and secondly, to see that this is      done under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  not  by      carrying out  in  a  capricious  or  arbitrary  manner.      Therefore, a  revisional authority  has to  be created.      What  is   revision  ?   The  essence   of   revisional      jurisdiction lies  in the duty of the superior tribunal      or officer entrusted with such jurisdiction to see that      the subordinate  tribunals or  officers keep themselves      within the  bounds prescribed  by law  and that they do      what their duty requires them to do and that they do it      in a  legal manner.  This  jurisdiction  being  one  of      superintendent and  correction in appropriate cases, it      is exercisable  even suo  motu as  is  clear  from  the      numerous  statutory  provisions  relating  to  revision      found in various Acts and Regulations such as the Civil      Procedure Code,  Criminal Procedure  Code,  Income  Tax      Act, etc.  The jurisdiction of suo motu revision is not      cribbed and  cabined  or  confined  by  conditions  and      qualifications. The  purpose of such an amplitude being      given Suo  motu revisions  appears to  be  as  much  to      safeguard the  interests of  the exchequer  as  in  the      interests of  the assesses.  The State can never be the      appellant and if there is an order against the State to      its prejudice,  and naturally  the  assesses  in  whose      favour the  order is  passed does not prefer an appeal,      the  State   would  suffer  unless  its  interests  are      safeguarded  by   the  exercise   of  such  supervisory      jurisdiction as  the one given to the authorities above      mentioned."      Thus the  Commissioner or  the Additional  Commissioner can, in  exercise of  his revisional  power,  re-assess  the turnover and  while  doing  so  rope  in  escaped  items  of turnover and thereby enhance the gross turnover.      Having found  that the power of revision exercisable by the Com  missioner, Commercial Taxes is not tramelled by any limitation, let  us now  see whether  the commissioner while exercising the  revisional power is confined to the order of assessment and the record of pro-           T.C. 299 117 ceedings of  the Assessing  officer or can he travel outside the  same   and  re-assess  the  gross  turnover  by  taking additional  material   under  consideration.  The  following observations made  in the majority judgment of this Court in the State  of Kerala  v. K.  M. Cheria  Abdulla  Co.(1)  are helpful in deciding this matter:-           "The words  of section 12(2) of the Madras General      Sales Tax  Act, 1939, that the Deputy Commissioner ’may      pass such  order with respect thereto as he thinks fit’      means such  order as  may in  the circumstances  of the      case for  rec rectifying  the defect be regarded by him      as just.  Power to  pass such  order  as  the  revising      authority thinks fit may in some cases include power to      make or  direct such  further  enquiry  as  the  Deputy      Commissioner may  find  necessary  for  rectifying  the      illegality or impropriety of the order, or irregularity      in the  proceeding. It is therefore not right baldly to      propound that  in passing  an order  in the exercise of      his revisional  jurisdiction, the  Deputy  Commissioner      must  in   all  cases   be  restricted  to  the  record      maintained by  the Officer  subordinate to him, and can      never make  enquiry  outside  that  record.  Therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    conferment of  power under  rule  14-A  of  the  Madras      General Sales  Tax Rules, 1939, to make further enquiry      in  cases   where  after   being  satisfied  about  the      illegality or  impropriety of the order or irregularity      in the  proceeding, the  revising authority  thinks  it      just for rectifying the defect to do so does not amount      to enlarging     the jurisdiction  conferred by section      12(2)."      It will also be apposite in this connection to refer to the following  operations made  by the  Madras High Court in State of Madras v. The Madras Knitting Co. Ltd.(2)           "The powers  given to the revising authority under      section   12(2) were  not confined  to errors patent on      the face  of the  record but  would extend  to  probing      further into  the records  like  calling  for  despatch      registers and other evidence."      It will  also be  useful in this connection to refer to the decision  of this  Court in Swastik oil Mills Ltd. v. H. B. Munshi,  Deputy Cont  missioner of  Sales Tax,  Bombay(3) where this  Court did  not accept the principle laid down by the Andhra  Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.  G.   Lakshmaiah  Chetty   &  Sons(4),  that  the  Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax while exercising revisional powers under the  Sales Tax Act of 1946 or of 1953 or of 1959 could not travel  beyond the  material or record that is available to the assessing authority and was not entitled to find data to  institute  an  enquire.  so  as  to  include  additional material in  order to  judge the  correctness of  the  order sought to be revised and held:      (1) (1965) 16 S.T.C. 875.     (3) [1968] 2 S. C. R.492.      (2) (1959) 10 S.T.C. 155.             (4) 12 S.T.C.663. 118           "Whenever a  power is conferred on an authority to      revise an  order, the  authority is entitled to examine      the correctness,  legality and  propriety of  the order      and to  pass such  suitable orders as the authority may      think fit  in the  circumstances of the particular case      before it.  When exercising    such powers, there is no      reason why  the authority  should not  be entitled,  to      hold an  enquiry or  direct an  enquiry to be held and,      for  that   purpose,  admit  additional  material.  The      proceedings for revision, if started suo motu, must not      of course  be based  on a  mere  conjecture  and  there      should be some ground for invoking the revision powers.      Once   these    powers   are    invoked,   the   actual      interference  must be based on sufficient grounds, and,      if it  is considered  necessary  that  some  additional      enquiry should  be made  to arrive at a proper and just      decision, there can be no bar to the revising authority      holding a  further enquiry or directing such an enquiry      to be  held by  some other appropriate authority. ’This      principle has  been clearly recognised by this Court in      the State  of Kerala  v. Abdullah and Company (1965) 16      S.T.C. 875."      The decisions  of this  Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural   income tax  and Sales Tax, Quilon and Anr. v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co.(1) the State of Kerala v. V.M. Appukutty   and Commissioner   of     Income-tax, Bombay  v. Shapoorji Pallonji  Mistry(3) relied  upon by  Mr. Desai  in support of  his contention  that  while  exercising      his revisional power  under section  20(3) of  the Act,  the Com Commissioner cannot  travel outside  the return  made by the assessee and  the assessment  order passed  by the Sales Tax officer with  a view  to finding  out suppressed  or escaped items  of   turnover  and   enhance   the   assessment   are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

distinguishable as  in all  those cases  there were specific and separate  provisions which  enabled escaped  turnover or income being  brought to  tax after  following    a  special procedure.  In  Dhanalakshimi      Vilas  Cashew  Co‘s  case (supra), there  was rule  33 of  Kerala  General  Sales  Tax Rules, 1950, in M. Appukutty case (supra), there was rule 17 of  the  Madras  General  Sales  Tax  Rules,  1939;  and  in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry‘s case (supra) there were sections 34 and 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which enabled escaped turnover or  escaped income to be brought to tax. In the Act before us, however  there  are   no  separate   or  specific provisions for assessment of‘ escaped turnover which may, by implication, be  said to  exclude  from  the  ambit  of  the revisional jurisdiction  of the  Commissioner the  taking of additional facts  into consideration and enhancing the gross turn over.      In  view   of  the  foregoing  discussion  we  have  no hesitation in  repelling   the first  contention  raised  on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Desai and in holding that the High  Court  was  right  in  answering  the  First  question referred to it by the Board of Revenue in the affirmative.      This takes  us to  the second  contention  advanced  on behalf of  the appellant  which is  covered  by  the  second question referred by the (1) (1969) 24 S.T.C. 491. (2) (1963) 14 S.T.C.242. (3) (1962) 44 I.T.R. 891. 119 Board of  Revenue at  the requisition of the High Court. For effectively dealing with this contention, it is necessary to advert to  the following  two previsions  viz. section 14 of the Act and rule 80A of the Rules:           "14. (1) The Commissioner may, subject to such      conditions as may be prescribed, require any dealer           (a)  to produce before him any accounts, registers                or documents,           (b)  to furnish any information, relating to stock                of  goods   of,  or   purchases,   sales   or                deliveries  of   goods  by,   the  dealer  or                relating to  any  other  matter,  as  may  be                deemed necessary  for the  purposes  of  this                Act.           (2) (a)  All  accounts,  registers  and  documents      relating to the stocks of goods of, or purchases, sales      and deliveries of goods by any dealer; and           (b) all goods kept in any place of business of any      dealer  shall  at  all  reasonable  times  be  open  to      inspection of the Commissioner.           (3) If the Commissioner has reason to suspect that      any dealer  is attempting  to evade  payment of any tax      under this  Act, he  may, for reasons to be recorded in      writing, seize  such accounts,  registers or documents,      of the  dealer as  may be  necessary, and shall grant a      receipt for  the same,  and shall  retain the same only      for so long as may be necessary for examination thereof      or for a prosecution.. "           "Rule 80A.  The appellate  or revisional authority      may, before  finally disposing of the matter, make such      inquiry or  cause such  inquiry  to  he  made  by  such      officer as it may think fit."      A combined  reading of  the provisions of Section 20(3) of the  Act and  rule 80A of the Rules would show that the., Commissioner, Commercial taxes is empowered to make or cause to be  made such  enquiry as  he may  think fit  for  proper exercise of  the revisional  jurisdiction conferred  on  him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

under section  20(3) of the Act. It would be further noticed that the  Commissioner can,  under; section  14 of  the Act, call upon ,. dealer  to produce  any accounts,  registers or documents or  to furnish  any information  relating  to  his business as  may be deemed necessary. for the purpose of the Act which  include the exercise of recessional jurisdiction. It would also be noticed that the powers under section 14 of the Act  have been  duly delegated  to  the  Commercial  Tax Officer. In  this state of affairs, it is immaterial whether the Commissioner   proceeds  to make  the enquiry  before or after filing of a revision petition so long as he affords to the person  likely to  be adversely  affected by his action, an opportunity  of being  heard. In  the instant  case,  the whole  thing  was  duly  processed  s  already  stated.  the Commercial Tax officer, Central Section, by his notice dated 120 October 25,  1960 gave adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain  the discrepancies in its cash memos and books of accounts. Another  opportunity  to  explain  the  suspicions circumstances relating  to the  alleged suppression  of  the turnover as  also to  refute the  material collected  by the Commercial Tax  officer, Central Section, as a result of the investigation made  by him  and to  show cause why action to subject the  escaped  turnover  to  tax  be  not  taken  was afforded to  the appellant  by the  Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,  when on  receipt of the ,aforesaid report dated December  27, 1960  of  the  Commercial  Tax  officer, Central  Section,  he  gave  a  notice  to  the  former  and furnished him  with a  full copy  of the  report. It  cannot therefore, be  maintained with  any show  of force  that, in admitting  and   relying,  on  the  aforesaid  report  dated December 27,  1960 of  the Commercial  Tax officer,  Central Section,  the   Additional  Commissioner,  Commercial  Taxes committed  any   illegality  or   breach  of  any  statutory provision  or   rule  or  transgressed  the  limits  of  his jurisdiction. It  will also  not be  out of place to mention that the  contention which  is the  subject  matter  of  the second question was never raised before the Board or Revenue as appears  from the  statement of  the case drawn by it. We arc, therefore,  clearly of the view that the High Court was right  in   answering  the   second  question  also  in  the affirmative.      In  the   result,  the  appeals  fail  and  are  hereby dismissed but  in the  circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. P.B.R.                                    Appeals dismissed. 121