1951 (11) TMI 9 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment order remanded for fresh assessment - Refusal of revision by Commissioner without hearing - Interpretation of Section 22(7) - Adverse effect on the applicant - Comparison with Bihar High Court judgment.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the applicant, a goldsmith, was assessed for taxation by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for a fresh assessment after a thorough examination of the accounts and transactions. The Commissioner, approached for revision, declined to interfere, stating the revision application was premature. The applicant, aggrieved by this decision, sought revision from the Board. The main contention was that the Commissioner rejected the revision application without granting the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

The court analyzed Section 22(7), which mandates that before passing any order likely to affect a person adversely, the individual must be given an opportunity to be heard. The question at hand was whether the Commissioner's order rejecting the revision application could be considered as adversely affecting the applicant. The court emphasized that maintaining the Assistant Commissioner's order to remand the case did not adversely impact the applicant. It referenced a Bihar High Court judgment, stating that the refusal to revise does not inherently affect either party adversely.

The court further discussed the Bihar High Court's interpretation of Section 20(5), similar to Section 22(7), which clarified that a revision application could be rejected without hearing the party making it. The court highlighted that a refusal to revise does not introduce finality to the proceedings and does not necessarily adversely affect the parties involved. While acknowledging the importance of a hearing in certain cases for propriety, the court concluded that in the present scenario, the refusal to revise did not warrant interference.

Ultimately, the court declined to interfere with the Sales Tax Commissioner's order and dismissed the application for revision. The judgment emphasized that the refusal to revise did not introduce finality to the proceedings, allowing the applicant to bring the case before the Commissioner again at the appropriate stage if needed.