JUDGMENT
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.
1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1983 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore (Commissioner) in case No. SMR 27 of 1983-84 made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (“the Act”).
2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Madhugiri Circle, Madhugiri (“CTO”). For the assessment period from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, the assessee filed its return before the CTO disclosing certain turnover. On 17th July, 1981, the CTO rejecting the books of accounts produced by the assessee completed the assessment on the best judgment assessment basis, inter alia, adding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the declared turnover.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of the CTO, the assessee filed an appeal in Appeal No. 216 of 1981-82 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore (DC), who on 23rd January, 1982, disposed of the same giving considerable relief to the assessee on the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the CTO to the declared turnover.
4. On 2nd July, 1983 the Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to set aside the order of the DC and restore the order of the CTO which was naturally opposed by the assessee on diverse grounds. On an examination of the records and the objections urged by the assessee, the Commissioner by his order dated 12th December, 1983 revised the order of the DC and has restored the order of the CTO. Hence, this appeal.
5. Sri E. R. Indrakumar, learned counsel for the assessee, strenuously contends that the order made by the DC was a well-reasoned and justifiable order that did not merit interference by the Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22A of the Act.
6. Sri H. L. Dattu, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the Revenue, sought to support the order of the Commissioner.
7. While rejecting the books of accounts produced by the assessee, the CTO added a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards declared turnover without giving reasons in support of the same. In that view the DC examined the contentions urged by the assessee before him, with some earnestness and found that the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 was without rhyme or reason and the same called for considerable reduction on different heads.
8. An examination of the order made by the DC giving relief to the assessee discloses that the DC had kept before him the correct legal principles and has made a reasonable estimate with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. While this is the nature of the order made by the DC, the order made by the Commissioner does not disclose that he has really come to grips on the question.
9. An examination of the order made by the Commissioner discloses that he has totally misunderstood the scope and ambit of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 and has understood the same as justifying an absolute interference in cases of best judgment assessments. We are of the view that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Esufali case [1973] 32 STC 77 does not lend itself to the conclusion reached by the Commissioner.
10. When one examines the orders of the Commissioner and the DC, it is clear that the order made by the DC which was a well-reasoned order did not justify the interference of the Commissioner under section 22A of the Act.
11. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner and restore the order of the DC. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Appeal allowed.