1966 (4) TMI 61 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Chief Commissioner has the power of review.
2. If the Chief Commissioner has the power of review, can it be exercised to correct a mere error of law.
3. Whether the Chief Commissioner is competent to review the order in view of the limitation as provided in rule 66(2) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns multiple Civil Writ Petitions where the petitioners, building contractors in Delhi, were assessed for sales tax despite their contention of not being liable for it. The Chief Commissioner initially upheld the petitioners' contention, ruling that they were not liable to pay sales tax on building contract activities. However, after a Supreme Court decision allowed tax levy on building construction work in Delhi, the Chief Commissioner issued a notice for review, which was challenged in a writ petition. The petitioners raised three contentions: (1) Chief Commissioner lacks review power, (2) review cannot correct a mere error of law, and (3) review is barred by limitation. The Court focused on the first contention, citing a Full Bench decision that Chief Commissioner cannot review using inherent powers. The Court analyzed the statutory power to review under section 20(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which allows review by the person appointed under section 3. The dispute centered on whether the Chief Commissioner is such a person. The Court held that the Chief Commissioner is not a person appointed under section 3, as the statute does not explicitly confer review power on him. The Court rejected arguments to interpret the law differently to give the Chief Commissioner review power, emphasizing that tax burdens must be imposed clearly. The judgment highlighted the scheme of the Act, concluding that the Chief Commissioner, as the final revising authority, cannot review orders. The Court quashed the notice for review, ruling in favor of the petitioners and allowing the petitions without costs.