1987 (7) TMI 546 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision filed by the department against the order of the Board of Revenue.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
3. Cross-objection filed by the assessee challenging the penalty.
4. Interpretation of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 14 of the Act regarding revisional powers.
5. Scope of revisional power of the Board of Revenue.
6. Comparison between revisional and appellate powers.
7. Application of precedent in interpreting the revisional powers.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision filed by the department against an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had partly allowed the claim for deductions and reduced the penalty from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 3,000. The assessee did not prefer any revision but filed a cross-objection challenging the penalty in the department's revision. The Single Bench of the Board of Revenue dismissed both the department's revision and the cross-objection. The assessee then appealed to a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, which set aside the penalty. The department argued that the Board of Revenue exceeded its powers by granting relief to the assessee who did not file a revision under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 14 of the Act regarding revisional powers. The court analyzed whether the Board of Revenue had the authority to grant relief to the assessee in the department's revision. The court held that the power under sub-section (1) is limited to the scope of the department's revision and cannot be extended to provide benefits to the assessee who did not exercise their right of revision under sub-section (2). The court emphasized that the revisional power is narrower than appellate power, and there is no provision for cross-objection or suo motu powers of revision under the Act.

The court referred to a precedent to support its interpretation of the revisional powers, highlighting that the absence of specific provisions for cross-objection or suo motu revision indicates the restricted nature of the revisional power under sub-section (1) of section 14. The court concluded that the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue erred in allowing the cross-objection filed by the assessee in the department's revision. Consequently, the court allowed the department's revision, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Bench's decision dated 16th September, 1970.