1984 (7) TMI 349 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis:
The case involves an assessee, a dealer in leather covers, who reported a total and taxable turnover for a specific year. The assessing authority made a best judgment assessment, determining the turnover and levying tax at different rates for different periods. The assessee did not appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, making the assessment order final. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was rejected on the grounds of not exhausting appeal remedies. The assessee then filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, who also dismissed it, citing the rejection by the Board of Revenue. The Tribunal rejected the appeal by the assessee against the Deputy Commissioner's order, leading to the current case challenging the Tribunal's decision.

The main contention of the assessee was that the Tribunal should have considered the appeal on merits rather than rejecting it on procedural grounds. The argument was that the authorities did not assess the merits of the case, and the original assessment had become final without further appeals. The assessee invoked revisional powers before both the Board of Revenue and the Deputy Commissioner, seeking a revision of the tax rate for leather covers. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the revision petition based on the prior rejection by the Board of Revenue, stating that moving a superior authority first precludes approaching a subordinate authority for the same relief. This approach was supported by a Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that when a superior authority is seized of a case, a subordinate authority should not claim jurisdiction to revise the same order. The Tribunal's rejection of the appeal was deemed justified since the Deputy Commissioner had not addressed the revision petition on merits. The Tribunal's power to grant relief is contingent on a revisional order being passed on merits, as per legal precedent.

Referring to a Supreme Court case, the judgment reinforced the principle that if a positive order in favor of the assessee is not passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to interfere. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, upholding the rejection of the appeal by the assessee. The tax case was dismissed, with no order as to costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing the importance of following the procedural hierarchy in seeking revisions and appeals under the relevant tax laws.