1978 (12) TMI 173 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to entertain new grounds not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in State of Madras v. Narayanaswami Naidu to the disputed turnover.
3. Powers of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Competence of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to entertain new grounds not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
The primary legal contention was whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) had the jurisdiction to entertain an objection regarding the turnover of Rs. 1,33,858.18, which was raised for the first time before it, without being raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The revenue argued that the Tribunal lacked such power, as the issue was not agitated at the earlier appellate stage. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was questioned based on a series of precedents from the Madras High Court, which consistently held that new grounds not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be entertained by the Tribunal.

Citing several decisions, including Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Government of Madras, State of Madras v. Spencer and Company Limited, and State of Tamil Nadu v. K.R. and P. Shanmugavel Nadar, the court reiterated that the Tribunal could not entertain new grounds for the first time. This view was supported by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill. The principle established was that an appeal to the Tribunal directly from the assessment order on new grounds was not permissible by law.

Issue 2: Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in State of Madras v. Narayanaswami Naidu to the disputed turnover
The Supreme Court decision in State of Madras v. Narayanaswami Naidu, which held that certain turnovers were not taxable, was brought into consideration. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee to raise the issue of Rs. 1,33,858.18 based on this decision, which was rendered after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The court acknowledged that the assessee would be eligible for relief under this decision. However, the court distinguished between the power to mold relief based on subsequent events and the competence of the appeal itself. It concluded that even though the decision of the Supreme Court was binding, the Tribunal could not entertain the issue without it being raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 3: Powers of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act
The court examined the statutory provisions under sections 31 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which outline the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The court emphasized that while the Tribunal's powers are extensive, they can only be exercised within the scope of a competent appeal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to pass orders on appeals was plenary, but this did not extend to entertaining new grounds not raised at the earlier appellate stage.

The court also considered the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited, where the Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could grant relief on grounds not raised before lower authorities. However, the court distinguished this case, stating that the powers of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were not of the same amplitude as those under the Indian Income-tax Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the new ground regarding the turnover of Rs. 1,33,858.18, which was not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal on this point was deemed incompetent, and the Tribunal's order deleting the sum from the taxable turnover was held to be in error. The revision petitions were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside. The court also noted that while the retention of the amount in the assessment was unfortunate, it was a consequence of the procedural limitations. The judgment emphasized adherence to the principle of stare decisis and the importance of maintaining consistency in judicial decisions.