AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abdul Hadi, J.—These two tax cases u/s 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 have been preferred by the Revenue in
relation to assessment year 1973-74. Only a very short question is involved in it. We heard only learned counsel for the revenue since the assessee
remains unrepresented. One Tax case is against allowing of the Tribunal Appeal by the assessee (against remand order by Appellate Asst.
Commissioner which set aside the reassessment) and the other Tax Case is against dismissal of the Enhancement Petition filed in the said appeal by
the Revenue.
The question involved is whether the enforcement authority could make a revised assessment u/s 16 of the Act when the earlier assessment by
the assessing authority was only a ""Nil"" assessment, which was not communicated to the assessee. Even earlier another Bench of this Court in
which one of us (Abdul Hadi, J) was a party, in the decision reported in Muthu Metals v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 3 MTCR 300 held that a
revised assessment u/s 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, could also be made by the Enforcement authority. No doubt in that
case there was an original assessment by the assessing authority which was communicated. The only difference in the present case is that there was
Nil"" assessment originally which was not communicated. But it is clear to us that this will not make any difference and it has also been held in State
of Tamil Nadu v. Batch & Com. 20 STC 273 SC that ""Nil"" assessment also is an assessment, even though it is not communicated. The Tribunal in
the present case no doubt followed an earlier tribunal''s order which has held that if the ""Nil"" assessment is not communicated, it cannot be taken as
assessment at all. But this decision of the tribunal in the present case as well as the earlier case, is not correct in view of the decision reported in 20
STC 273 SC. In fact the above referred to earlier judgment of the tribunal has been reversed in the order dt. 26-4-95 in T.C. Nos. 1428 and
1429 of 1984 (State of Tamil Nadu v. G.S. Raheem) which is assessee''s own case relating another two assessment years, 1974-75 and 1975-
76.
No doubt in the present case it is not strictly borne out from the orders of the tribunal or of the other authorities below that there was a ""Nil
assessment. But the learned counsel for the revenue has shown us the assessment file, particularly A.1 Register, which shows that for the
assessment year in question that is 1973-74, there was ""nil"" assessment Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the decision of the tribunal in
the above aspect is wrong and we accordingly set aside the order of the tribunal and the tax case revisions are allowed. No costs.