9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1958 (9) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Competence of Board of Revenue to transfer proceedings to Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for restoration of review petition. Analysis: The petitioner filed an appeal against an assessment order, which was dismissed. Subsequently, a review petition was also dismissed for default, leading to a restoration application. The Board of Revenue transferred the application to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes based on Acts 25 and 24 of 1957. The petitioner argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to transfer the application, as per the Acts in force. The Government Pleader contended that the legal proceedings were saved by the proviso to Act 25 of 1957, allowing the Government to specify the authority to deal with such proceedings, in this case, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, the Court found that the right saved under the proviso pertained to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, and did not extend to the application for restoration of a review petition. The power to review was granted by the Board of Revenue Act, not the Sales Tax Act, and remained intact even after Act 25 of 1957. The subsequent Act, Act 24 of 1957, transferred pending matters from the Board to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Board had no authority to transfer the proceedings to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to handle the case. The Court quashed the orders of both the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, leaving the question of jurisdiction of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal open for future consideration. This detailed judgment clarifies the jurisdictional issues arising from the transfer of proceedings between different authorities under the relevant Acts. It emphasizes the specific powers conferred by each Act and the implications of subsequent legislation on pending legal matters. The Court's analysis provides a clear interpretation of the law and ensures the proper application of jurisdictional principles in this case.
|
