1979 (10) TMI 210 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Invocation of suo motu powers of revision under section 32 of Act 1 of 1959 by an assessee.
3. Interpretation of the term "the order has been made the subject of an appeal" under section 32(2)(b) of the Act.
4. Refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction based on lack of diligence in filing an appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved delays in filing appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, leading to dismissal on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. However, the High Court emphasized that the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds does not render them effective appeals, allowing the Deputy Commissioner to entertain a revision against the original assessment orders.

2. The issue of whether an assessee can invoke suo motu powers of revision under section 32 of Act 1 of 1959 was deliberated. The Court referred to precedents and rejected the contention that such powers can only be exercised by the authority vested with them. It was established that any party aggrieved, including an assessee, could prompt the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the suo motu power of revision, provided the circumstances warranting such action exist.

3. The interpretation of the term "the order has been made the subject of an appeal" under section 32(2)(b) of the Act was crucial. The Court clarified that for the bar under section 32(2)(b) to apply, the appeal must be effective and not dismissed on technical grounds like delay. Drawing from previous judgments, it was affirmed that ineffective appeals do not preclude the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to entertain revisions.

4. The judgment addressed the refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction based on the lack of diligence in filing appeals. It was emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner cannot decline to exercise revisional powers solely on the ground of the assessee's failure to file an appeal promptly. Such a refusal would deny the jurisdiction itself, as the revisional power under section 32 cannot be declined based on the lack of diligence in filing an appeal. The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders and remitted the cases for proper disposal according to law.