1985 (1) TMI 290 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Improper presentation of a special appeal before the Board of Revenue.

Analysis:
The case involves a reference under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 regarding the presentation of a special appeal by Shri Dalu Ram Sharma, D.P. The assessing authority determined the tax liability of the respondent, M/s. Poonam Chand Uttamchand of Beawar, which was later appealed by the assessee to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer. The State of Rajasthan then moved an application for revision before the Board of Revenue, which was rejected by a single-member bench. Subsequently, the assessing authority filed a special appeal under section 14(4A) against the order of the single-member bench, leading to a contention that the special appeal was improperly presented as Shri Dalu Ram Sharma did not have a valid authorization to act on behalf of the appellant.

The High Court referred to relevant legal provisions, including section 14(4A) of the Act and Rules 2(b) and 34 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules. It was argued that a person authorized in writing could act as an agent before any sales tax authority. The court considered precedents such as State of Rajasthan v. Gorilal Ajmera and Commercial Taxes Officer v. Ayurved Sewashram, where the requirement of a "vakalatnama" for representation was waived as a curable irregularity. Additionally, cases like C.T.O. v. Sanghi Oxygen Co. and C.T.O. v. Industrial Chemicals & Plastics were cited to support the notion that irregularities in presentation could be overlooked under certain circumstances.

The court also examined the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Gemini Murti Kalakar, emphasizing the necessity of proper authorization for appeal presentation. However, it was noted that rule 34 allowed for appeal presentation by the appellant, pleader, or agent, indicating flexibility in the mode of submission. The court concluded that since the memo of appeal was signed by the assessing authority after consultation with Shri Dalu Ram Sharma, the special appeal was not improperly presented. The judgment referenced Khandelwal Enterprise v. A.C.T.O., Ward I to highlight that the defect of filing by an unauthorized person could be cured by submitting the required authority subsequently.

In the final analysis, the court answered the question of law in the negative, ruling in favor of the department and against the assessee. The reference was thus resolved with a finding that the special appeal by Shri Dalu Ram Sharma was not improperly presented before the Board of Revenue.