1955 (9) TMI 45 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of revision application by Additional Collector of Sales Tax for failure to make payment and produce relevant chalan.
2. Interpretation of section 22 of the Act of 1946 regarding payment requirements for revision applications.
3. Conflict between rule 48 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules and legislative intention of section 22.
4. Consideration of previous decisions in similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a revision application against the Additional Collector of Sales Tax's order, which was dismissed due to non-payment of Rs. 200 and failure to produce the relevant chalan within the specified time frame. The applicants argued that the Additional Collector had no authority to demand payment before admitting the revision application, citing section 22 of the Act of 1946. However, it was noted that while section 21 mandates proof of payment for appeals, no such provision exists in section 22.

2. The court examined the legislative intent behind section 22 and rule 48 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules. It was highlighted that section 22 does not explicitly prohibit the revisional authority from requiring payment of tax before admitting a revision application. The court acknowledged that while the original rule 48 made tax payment mandatory for revision applications, subsequent amendments introduced discretion for the authority to decide on such payments.

3. The conflict between rule 48 and section 22 was addressed, with the court concluding that the rule, in its initial form, contravened the legislative intent by mandating tax payment for revision applications. However, the amended rule now aligns with the discretionary nature of section 22, allowing the authority to decide on the necessity of tax payment. Consequently, the court upheld the Additional Collector's decision to dismiss the application for non-payment.

4. Previous decisions, including Shah Khimji Shamji v. The State of Bombay and Revision Application No. 96 of 1954, were referenced to clarify that rule 48 does not apply to cases where the order being revised was not passed in appeal. These decisions were deemed irrelevant to the present case, which involved a revision application against an order passed in appeal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application based on the failure to comply with the payment requirement.

In conclusion, the court held that the Additional Collector was within his jurisdiction to demand payment before admitting the revision application, in line with the discretionary nature of section 22 and the amended rule 48. The dismissal of the application was deemed appropriate due to non-compliance with the payment obligation.