1956 (9) TMI 43 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the assessee was a second dealer? Held that - Appeal dismissed. It is true that the High Court observed that the order of remand made at an earlier stage restricted the scope of the enquiry to the merits of the dispute between the parties and no fresh questions could be raised before the Tribunal. Assuming that the High Court was not strictly right in the view that it took, if the Tribunal did not allow the assessee to raise the questions which it sought to raise, there is no ground on which this Court will be justified in allowing those new contentions to be raised and to remand the case to the Tribunal for hearing on those questions. It is true that a question as to the vires of section 40(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1957, was raised, but it is now settled by decisions of this Court that the question as to the vires of a statute which a taxing officer has to administer cannot be raised before him.

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act
2. Authority of Deputy Commissioner to revise assessment
3. Grounds for revision petitions to the High Court
4. Discretion of the Tribunal and High Court in allowing new contentions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision of assessment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act:
The case involved the revision of assessment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act for the quarters ending June 30, 1955, September 30, 1955, December 31, 1955, and March 31, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer initially granted exemption in certain sales of coffee seed. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the assessment, stating that the exemption was wrongly granted, and included the sales in the taxable turnover of the assessee. This led to a series of proceedings and appeals challenging the revision of assessment.

2. Authority of Deputy Commissioner to revise assessment:
The Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings for revision of assessment under section 15(1)(i) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The authority of the Deputy Commissioner to exercise revisional powers was questioned, leading to multiple rounds of proceedings and appeals. The issue of whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to revise the assessment order was a central point of contention throughout the case.

3. Grounds for revision petitions to the High Court:
After the Tribunal set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order, the State of Mysore filed revision petitions to the High Court under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The High Court remanded the cases to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for a proper disposal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's handling of the case and directed a reconsideration based on the merits of the dispute raised by the assessee.

4. Discretion of the Tribunal and High Court in allowing new contentions:
The Tribunal and the High Court exercised discretion in considering the contentions raised by the assessee. The Tribunal declined to allow certain contentions to be raised, and the High Court restricted the scope of the enquiry to the merits of the dispute. The High Court did not permit new questions to be argued, emphasizing the need for adherence to the grounds raised initially. The Court highlighted that parties are typically restricted to the grounds raised in the appeal or revision, with limited scope for introducing new contentions during the proceedings.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of revision of assessment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, highlighting the roles and powers of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal, and the High Court in addressing disputes related to sales tax assessments. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the grounds raised initially and exercising discretion in allowing new contentions during legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →