1977 (6) TMI 91 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the claim for exemption.
2. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revision powers against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the order of the Board of Revenue under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The case involved a dealer in iron and steel who reported a total turnover for a specific year. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer found the accounts defective and determined the taxable turnover differently. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the book turnover but rejected a claim for exemption. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, through a consent order, remanded the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for a detailed consideration of the claim for exemption, which was larger than the original claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after verification, granted exemption to a certain extent, reducing the taxable turnover. The Board of Revenue, however, in its suo motu revision, held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in allowing exemption on a larger amount than originally claimed. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the Tribunal's order on the claim for exemption.

2. The counsel for the assessee argued that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was within his authority to consider the larger claim for exemption based on the Tribunal's order. The Board contended that the Tribunal's direction was only to examine the claim afresh, without determining the entitlement to claim exemption on a higher amount. The Court disagreed with the Board, stating that the Tribunal's order clearly indicated its awareness of the larger claim for exemption and its intention for a comprehensive examination. The Court held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by revising the Tribunal's order, which allowed the assessee to pursue the larger exemption claim. The Court set aside the Board's order and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, granting costs as well.