1991 (7) TMI 310 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner to revise order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 34 of the Act when there is an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a tax appeal against the order of the Joint Commissioner passed in suo motu revision under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee, a partnership firm dealing in grocery, was assessed to sales tax, and a penalty was levied for an alleged illegal collection of surcharge on the first sales of mustard. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially sustained the addition to the taxable turnover but set aside the penalty. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal later allowed the appeal and accepted the book turnover of the assessee, leading to the Joint Commissioner proposing to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding the penalty issue.

2. The primary legal objection raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers of revision under section 34 of the Act when there is an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Section 34(2)(b) of the Act explicitly prohibits the Joint Commissioner from initiating proceedings against an order that has been made the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal. The Court referred to a Division Bench judgment and a Full Bench decision, both affirming that once an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is under appeal, the Board of Revenue loses its power to interfere with that order under section 34(1) of the Act. The Full Bench held that the Board of Revenue cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction once an effective appeal has been made against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

3. The Court found that the judgments cited clearly applied to the facts of the present case. Following the settled law by the Full Bench, the tax appeal was allowed, and the order of the Joint Commissioner was set aside. The Court concluded that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras held that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 34 of the Act when there was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court relied on established legal principles and precedents to support its decision, ultimately allowing the tax appeal and setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner.