Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1952 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1952 (2) TMI 16 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the Province of Bihar to make a revisional application under Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. 2. Competency of the Commissioner to entertain such an application. 3. Entertaining an application under Section 24(4) after the expiry of the limitation period as per Rule 60(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1944. 4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain and allow the revisional application under Section 24(4) and direct a fresh assessment. 5. Legality of rejecting account books produced by the dealer on mere suspicion. 6. Competency of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to pass a fresh order of assessment beyond 24 months from the expiry of the relevant period, as directed by the Board of Revenue. 7. Competency of the Commissioner under Section 24(4) to set aside assessment orders against which appeals had been filed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of the Province of Bihar to make a revisional application under Section 24(4): The Board of Revenue concluded that the Province of Bihar was entitled to file a revision petition under Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The provision allows the Commissioner to revise any order passed under the Act or rules thereunder by a person appointed under Section 3 to assist him. This power includes revising the order of assessment, as in the present case. 2. Competency of the Commissioner to entertain the application: The Board of Revenue agreed with the Commissioner that he was competent to entertain the revisional application under Section 24(4). The Commissioner has the requisite power to revise orders, and this includes the power to remand cases for further enquiry and assessment according to directions. 3. Entertaining an application after the expiry of the limitation period: The Board noted that if a satisfactory explanation is provided for the delay, it is open to the Court to admit a petition even beyond the period of limitation. In this case, it was assumed that the Commissioner was satisfied with the reasons for the delay, as no specific finding to the contrary was mentioned. 4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to direct a fresh assessment: The Board held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain and allow the revisional application and to direct a fresh assessment by a subordinate officer. The Board emphasized that the revision powers vested in the Commissioner and the Board include all the powers mentioned in Section 24(3)(a) and (b). 5. Legality of rejecting account books on mere suspicion: The Board did not specifically address this issue in detail, but it was implied that the Commissioner's decision to remand the case for fresh assessment was based on the unsatisfactory state of affairs and the gross turnover figures being based on surmises. 6. Competency of the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order of assessment beyond 24 months: The Board was inclined to think that the proviso to Section 10, which directs that no order assessing the amount of tax due from a dealer shall be passed later than 24 months from the expiry of such period, did not apply in this case. The Board reasoned that since the petitioner had already been assessed for these quarters, the assessment was merely being revised under the orders of the Commissioner and the Board. 7. Competency of the Commissioner to set aside orders of assessment against which appeals had been filed: The Board did not find it necessary to address this issue separately, as the reference was made on the other points. Judgment: The High Court found that the reference made by the Board of Revenue was incompetent. The Court emphasized that the preliminary conditions imposed by Section 21 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, were mandatory and that the reference made by the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the reference or answer the questions raised therein. The reference was not answered, and there was no order as to costs.
|