1964 (7) TMI 36 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
2. Nature of relief granted (ex gratia vs. statutory).
3. Limitation period for revision applications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939:

The primary issue was whether the Board of Revenue had the jurisdiction to revise the orders of the assessing authority under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The State argued that the application made by the respondent-dealer was not under Section 12(3) of the Act, which confers revisional powers upon the Board. The State contended that the Board's power of revision could only be exercised against orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, not directly against the orders of the assessing authority.

The judgment clarified that Section 12 confers revisional powers on the Commercial Tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue, exercisable either suo motu or on application. The Court held that the Board's revisional jurisdiction was very wide and could be exercised against the orders and proceedings of any of its subordinate officers. The Court observed that the Board, while granting partial relief, had excused the delay in making the application under Section 12, indicating that it was exercising its revisional power under this provision.

The Court rejected the State's contention, stating that the Board of Revenue, as the highest authority, had the power to revise the orders passed by any officer subordinate to it. The judgment emphasized that the Board's suo motu power of revision was not limited by the same constraints as the power exercised on application, thus allowing it to grant relief for any number of years.

2. Nature of relief granted (ex gratia vs. statutory):

The State argued that the relief granted to the respondents was purely of an ex gratia nature and not statutory. The Court, however, found that the Board of Revenue and the Government did not act outside the ambit of the Act. The relief was granted within the four corners of the Act, and the revision of the assessment was directed by the Board of Revenue in the exercise of its statutory powers.

The Court noted that the Board's recommendation led to the revision of the assessments by the assessing authority, which underscored that the relief was not ex gratia but statutory. The judgment concluded that the orders of the Government and the Board were made in the exercise of their appellate or revisional powers, thereby dismissing the argument that the relief was ex gratia.

3. Limitation period for revision applications:

The issue of the limitation period for filing revision applications was also addressed. The State contended that the application was not filed within the prescribed time limit. However, the Court observed that Section 12 of the Act allowed the relevant authority to admit an application after the period of 60 days if there was sufficient cause for the delay.

The Court noted that the Board had excused the delay in filing the application, and once admitted, there was no limitation on the Board's power to grant relief. The judgment emphasized that the power of revision exercised on application was not limited by the same constraints as the suo motu power, allowing the Board to grant relief for any number of years.

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to revise the orders of the assessing authority under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. It rejected the State's argument that the relief granted was ex gratia and confirmed that it was statutory. The Court also clarified that the limitation period for filing revision applications could be excused by the Board, allowing it to grant relief for any number of years. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →