1967 (7) TMI 116 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhance turnover in an appeal.
2. Entitlement to exemption in respect of turnover and the issue of interpolation in documents.

Jurisdiction of Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Enhance Turnover:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to enhance the turnover in an appeal by the assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The new Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, came into force, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the turnover despite the assessee's objection. The Tribunal held that the assessee had a vested right under the earlier Act against enhancement of turnover by the appellate authority. The court emphasized that the assessee's right to appeal and further appeal under the old Act was a vested right, recognized in previous judgments. The court concluded that under the new Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to enhance the turnover in appeals related to assessments made before the new Act's commencement.

Entitlement to Exemption and Issue of Interpolation:
Apart from the jurisdiction issue, there was a contention regarding the assessee's entitlement to exemption in respect of certain turnover items. The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, differing from the lower authorities who suspected interpolation in documents. However, the court noted that the revenue did not argue the interpolation point before the Tribunal, precluding a second opportunity to raise the issue. The court highlighted the importance of preserving the assessee's vested rights under the old Act, emphasizing that the new Act should not impair these rights. The court clarified that the new Act did not grant the assessee any additional vested rights to resist enhancement by the Tribunal. The court analyzed previous cases where the enhancement of turnover by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside due to vested rights of the assessee under the old Act.

Conclusion:
The Madras Act 10 of 1963 was crucial in preserving the vested rights of the assessee under the old Act, allowing the assessee to continue appeals and remedies as if the new Act had not been passed. The court held that under the new Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no authority to enhance turnover in appeals related to assessments made before the new Act's commencement. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the jurisdiction issue and emphasizing the preservation of vested rights under the old Act.