1959 (9) TMI 35 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to dismiss the appeal.
2. Denial of liability by the petitioner.
3. Revisional powers of the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Merger of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Finality of the High Court's order.

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to Dismiss the Appeal:
The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner, having admitted the appeal and heard arguments, could not dismiss it subsequently without giving an opportunity to be heard on the point of jurisdiction. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing non-compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner upheld this dismissal, stating that no notice was required as the appeal could not be entertained at all under the statutory provisions.

2. Denial of Liability by the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended before the Board that the entire case was based on a denial of liability and that the Assistant Commissioner had permitted the petitioner to pay an additional sum and directed a stay of further realization pending the appeal's disposal. The petitioner argued that it was improper for the Assistant Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on grounds of non-compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 24 after having admitted the appeal. The Board observed that if the argument was based on denial of liability, the mistake in filling the form should be considered clerical and not justify the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner had already paid 20% of the assessed tax, making the dismissal improper and illegal.

3. Revisional Powers of the Deputy Commissioner:
The Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act to revise the assessment confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner included additional turnovers in the assessable turnover, which was challenged by the petitioner. The Tribunal excluded certain turnovers from the assessable turnover, holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to reopen the assessment after the Tribunal and High Court had passed their orders. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that an order of assessment is treated as a single, indivisible entity, and the Deputy Commissioner's revisional powers do not extend to orders already adjudicated by the Tribunal or High Court.

4. Merger of the Order of the Commercial Tax Officer with the Order of the Appellate Tribunal:
The Tribunal held that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer merged with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader contended that the State could only remedy prejudicial orders through the Deputy Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal and High Court ruled that once an order is appealed and adjudicated by the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner's revisional powers do not apply to that order. The statutory scheme does not support the simultaneous exercise of appellate and revisional powers on the same assessment by different authorities.

5. Finality of the High Court's Order:
The High Court's final order under section 12-B of the Act was considered to have statutory finality. The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise an assessment that had been the subject of a final order by the High Court. The Tribunal's view that the Deputy Commissioner's order was beyond his jurisdiction was upheld. The High Court dismissed the petition with costs, affirming that the Deputy Commissioner could not interfere with an assessment order that had been finalized by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment after it had been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the High Court. The case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to hear the appeal on merits and pass an order in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the indivisibility of an assessment order and the finality of appellate and High Court orders in the statutory scheme.