1999 (2) TMI 522 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Correctness of the assessment questioned - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The scope of section 38 was limited to an erroneous decision of the Tribunal on any question of law and the failure to decide a question of law. In this case, the Tribunal s decision is based upon the facts of the case and the application of the law as laid down by this Court. Hence, there was no erroneous decision on a question of law or failure to decide a question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the time-limit under section 32 for exercising suo motu powers of the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Whether the assessee can invoke revisional jurisdiction without filing an appeal against the assessment order.
3. Validity of contesting liability and invoking jurisdiction under section 32 after showing turnover without protest.

Analysis:
1. The first contention raised in the revision petition was regarding the time-limit under section 32 for the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order. The Supreme Court clarified that the time-limit does not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from passing an order within the prescribed period, even if the order is made at a later date. In this case, the revision petition was filed within four years, and the Deputy Commissioner's order was passed later. The Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning and rejected this contention.

2. The second contention questioned the right of the assessee to invoke revisional jurisdiction without filing an appeal against the assessment order. The Court pointed out that the section allows for a revision to be filed when no appeal has been made before the appellate authority. As per the sub-section, a revision can be filed after the time for appeal has expired. In this case, since the assessee did not appeal to the appellate authority, they were within their rights to invoke the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32.

3. The third contention was based on the assessee's actions regarding contesting liability and invoking jurisdiction under section 32 after showing turnover without protest. The Court highlighted that the revisional authority, following the direction of the High Court, applied the law as declared by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's decision, based on facts and the application of the law, concluded that the assessee could not be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the scope of revision under section 38 is limited to erroneous decisions on questions of law, which was not the case here. Therefore, the High Court's judgment in the revision filed by the State was deemed correct, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting all three contentions raised in the revision petition and dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs.