1979 (8) TMI 203 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Conflict between the decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to Revise the Order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:

The primary issue revolves around whether the Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when the order has already been appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that once an appeal is filed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Board of Revenue loses its jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This contention was supported by a decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that the Board had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner once an appeal had been filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:

Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, outlines the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue. Sub-section (1) allows the Board to call for and examine orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, sub-section (2)(b) imposes a restriction, stating that the Board shall not pass any order if the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or of a revision in the High Court. The court interpreted this provision to mean that the Board loses its revisional power once the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is appealed. The court emphasized that the statute treats the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as a single, indivisible order, and thus, the Board cannot interfere once any part of the order is under appeal.

3. Conflict Between the Decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu:

The court addressed the apparent conflict between the decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu. The former decision, dealing with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, held that the Board of Revenue loses jurisdiction to revise an order once it is appealed. The latter decision, dealing with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, held that the Commissioner's power to revise is merely suspended during the pendency of an appeal. The court concluded that there was no real conflict because the statutory provisions in the two Acts were different. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act imposes a complete ban on the Board's revisional power once an appeal is filed, whereas the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act only suspends the power during the appeal's pendency.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, confirming that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner once the order was appealed to the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26th August 1974 was set aside. There was no order as to costs.