1963 (7) TMI 73 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Board to interfere with revised assessment order after four years from the original order.

Analysis:
The appeal raised a legal question regarding the power of the Board of Revenue, Madras, to revise an assessment order beyond four years from the original order under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellants, dealers in non-ferrous metals, challenged the Board's decision to revise the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer after the expiry of four years from the order of the Special Commercial Tax Officer. The sequence of events leading to the appeal involved the appellants' objection to the inclusion of a turnover amount based on a Supreme Court decision. The key issue was whether the Board had the jurisdiction to revise the order after the lapse of four years from the original order.

The Board's powers of revision were governed by section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court acknowledged that the Board could set aside orders of the Commercial Tax Officer or Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in a proper case. However, the critical point of contention was the time limitation on the Board's revisionary powers. The Court scrutinized the Board's reasoning and found a fallacy in its interpretation of the Madura Mills case cited as authority. The Court emphasized that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's order was merely consequential to the Special Commercial Tax Officer's order and did not have an independent existence. The Court highlighted the significance of the 1959 Act, particularly section 31(4), which mandated the assessing authority to pass amended assessment orders in line with appellate decisions.

The Court distinguished the Madura Mills case from the present scenario, emphasizing the Board's jurisdictional limits in revising orders beyond the statutory limitation period. It concluded that while the Board purported to revise the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's order, its essence was to challenge the legality of the Special Commercial Tax Officer's order, which had attained finality after four years. The Court held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to indirectly revise an order that was time-barred. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Board's order, and awarded costs to the appellants.