JUDGMENT
Madon, J.
1. The question for determination in these three References is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax had the power to revise certain assessments of the applicants, who are the assessees, in exercise of his powers of suo motu revision under s. 31 of the Bombay Sales tax Act, 1953. The assessees, who were registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, were assessed on August 30, 1963 for the periods April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 and April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959. In respect of the second period there were two orders of assessment, one order the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During these periods the assessees were carrying on the business of supplying and installing electric lifts. In respect of one of such contracts the Applicants applied under S. 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, for determination of the question whether certain contracts entered into by them were contracts purely of work and labour or were transactions of sale. The Dy. Commr. of Sales Tax held that these were divisible contracts, namely partly of sales of goods and partly of sales of goods and partly of work and labour. Against this decision the applicants went in appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Dy. Commissioner of Sales tax.
2. In view of the fact that in the said determination proceedings the said contracts were held to be divisible contracts, the applicants claimed in their assessments for the aforesaid price of the contracts periods deductions of 20 percent of the contract entered into by them as being charges for work and labour. In the said assessment orders the Sales Tax Officer allowed the said deductions. He further went into the question as to the date when the sale could be said to have been completed, and held that as and when each component part of the lift was supplied by the applicants to their customers the sale thereof was completed, and he accordingly held that tax was payable by the applicants in respect of such supplies along with the returns filed by the applicants in respect of that quarter, and imposed a penalty for non-payment of such amount of tax. Against these orders of assessment the applicants filed appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who, in view of a subsequent judgment of the Tribunal deleted the penalty in his order dated June 22, 1964. We are not concerned with the rest of the order in appeal.
3. On June 11, 1965 the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notices to the Applicants to who cause why the said orders of assessment, as confirmed by the orders in appeal of the Assistant Commissioner of sales tax, should not be revised on the ground that a larger allowance for installation charges was allowed to the applicants that they were entitled to. By his three orders dated September 4, 1965 the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax held that the 20 per cent deduction claimed by the applicants as being charges of work and labour was wrongly allowed to them and that only a deduction of 10 per cent should be allowed. Against these orders of revision the applicants went in appeal to the Tribunal for the first time the applicants contended that these were not cases of revision but of reassessment under S. 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had, therefore, no jurisdiction to revise the said orders. It was contended before the Tribunal that the information that 20 per cent deduction was wrongly allowed to the Applicants was not derived from the record but was information obtained extraneously by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax The Tribunal rejected this argument and pointed out that the said information was obtained only from the record of the case before the Sales Tax Officer at the time of the assessments. On merits the Tribunal allowed a deduction of 15 per cent. Arising out of these orders of the Tribunal, at the instance of the assessees the following question has been referred to us for our determination in each of the above three References :
“Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the cases were not covered by S. 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, but they were covered by S. 31 of the said Act, and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax was fully justified in exercising jurisdiction under S. 31 of the said Act ?”
4. Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 1976 relates to the assessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, for the period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958; Sales Tax Reference No. 10 of 1976, relates to the assessment under the same Act for the period April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959; and Sales Tax Reference No. 11 of 1976 relates to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the period April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959.
5. Before us Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the Applicants, urged two points. The first was that the information that 20 per cent of deduction for work and labour charges was wrongly allowed to the Applicants was derived by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax otherwise than from the record of the case, and the second was that the Sales Tax Officer had not applied his mind to the quantum of deduction to be allowed to the Applicants. In Mr. Patil’s submission, on either of these grounds these were cases for reassessment and not for revision. So far as the first point is concerned, Mr. Patil argued that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax showed that the information that 20 per cent for work and labour charges was wrongly allowed to the applicants was derived by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax from the order and judgment of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax in the determination proceeding under S. 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, adopted by the Applicants and the order in appeal of the Tribunal therefrom, which were not part of the record before the Sales tax Officer, and, therefore, this was information extraneously obtained by him. This submission is without basis in facts. The main order of the Sales Tax Officer is the order in respect of the assessment for the period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958. The other two orders merely refer to the said order and assess tax, allow deductions and levy penalty for the reasons mentioned in the said order. The said order for the period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 opens by referring to the determination proceedings adopted by the Applicants, the questions referred by the Applicants for the determination of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the findings given thereon and the fact that these findings were confirmed by the Tribunal. It then proceeds to state. “The copies of the said order and judgment are on record”, this is, the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in the determination proceedings and the judgment of the Tribunal in appeal therefrom. Thus, these orders and judgment being before the Sales Tax Officer and part of the record before him, it would not be correct to say that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was exercising his powers of suo motu revision on information outside the record of the cases. So far as the second point urged by Mr. Patil is concerned, we find from the said order of assessment that it too equally has no basis in facts. The assessments order clearly states :-
“Hence T.O. returned and the deductions claimed are adjusted and same are duly explained to the persons who had attended from time to time and same are accepted by him. Hence the detailed working of figures is not again repeated in this order. On allowing the deduction admissible and proved, the balance T.O. of sales in assessed to tax at appropriate rates.”
A little further the said order states :-
“It is seen from the accounts that he has raised the bill for 80% of contract value, which is mainly material value of supply of goods, and has also collected tax on such value …. From the above, it is clear that though he has collected tax no sooner the bill for 80% of contract value is raised and though principally he has accepted that the date of supply is date of sale, yet while returning the sales he has not returned the same properly.”
The said orders of assessment, therefore, clearly show that while assessing the Applicants for the said two periods the Sales tax Officer had before him the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax in the determination proceedings, the judgment of The Tribunal in appeal therefrom, the bills submitted by the Applicants to their customers and the books of account of the applicants, that he had considered all these materials both in relation to the deduction claimed by the Applicants in respect of work and labour charges and in respect of other deductions claimed by them as also with respect to the date when each sale took place with reference to the levy of penalty for not including it in the return of what he considered the particular quarter in which it should have been shown. Having considered all these matters before him the Sales Tax Officer has allowed the 20 per cent deduction as claimed by the applicants as deduction for work and labour charges and has taken 80 per cent as the value of materials supplied.
6. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicants next submitted that the Sales tax Officer could not be said to have conscientiously applied his mind to the deduction claimed by the Applicants because he has not given his detailed reasons for allowing such deductions. We are unable to accept this submission. We do not find it necessary that with respect to each and every question before him a Sales Tax Officer should give detailed reasons. In fact, with respect to the deductions claimed by the Applicants the Sales Tax Officer has clearly stated in the said assessment order for the period April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 that he has explained to the representatives of the Applicants who attended from time to time the deductions which he was going to allow and that as the representatives of the Applicants accepted what he was going to allow he was not given the detailed working in his orders.
7. For the reasons set out above, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative.
8. The Applicants will pay to the Respondents a sum of Rs. 300/- as the total costs of these three References.