1963 (12) TMI 22 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeals by assessees against orders of Board of Revenue under section 23 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dealt with the issue of the maintainability of appeals by assessees against orders of the Board of Revenue under section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessees had been assessed to sales tax, and their revision petitions filed under section 20(1) were rejected by the Board of Revenue. The main contention was whether appeals against such orders would lie to the High Court under section 23 of the Act. The argument put forth by the assessees' counsel was that even if the revision to the Board of Revenue was irregular or incompetent, the Board's orders must indicate that it applied its mind to the case, making it appealable. On the other hand, the Government Pleader argued that appeals to the High Court were only permissible if the Board acted suo motu under section 20(1) and not when its revisional jurisdiction was invoked by a party.

The court examined the scheme of the Act, comparing it with the previous Madras General Sales Tax Act. It noted that the Andhra Act omitted the provision for the Board of Revenue to entertain revision petitions at the instance of aggrieved parties, unlike the Madras Act. Section 20(1) empowered the Board to call for and examine records for legality or propriety, but the right of appeal to the High Court was limited to orders passed suo motu by the Board. The court highlighted the specific language of section 23, emphasizing that appeals to the High Court were only allowed when the matter was taken up by the Board suo motu, not when the assessee invoked the Board's revisional jurisdiction.

The court rejected the contention for a liberal construction of the provision enabling appeals, citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras, which were deemed inapplicable. It also referenced a decision by the Orissa High Court and another case regarding the quasi-judicial functions of the Board of Revenue, clarifying that the rejection of appeals did not make them appealable unless provided for by statute. Ultimately, the court held that the appeals by the assessees were not maintainable under section 23, following the interpretation of the specific language and scheme of the Act. The appeals were accordingly rejected, and the papers were to be returned to the Advocate.