1990 (11) TMI 392 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Entertainment of revision petition against rejection of review application by Additional Commissioner.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference made to the High Court under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The matter concerned the rejection of a claim by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act for the assessment year ending March 31, 1962. The Additional Commissioner declined to review his earlier revisional orders, leading to further revisions transferred to the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The Tribunal entertained the revisions, setting aside all previous orders and remitting the case for fresh assessment. The main question referred to the High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in entertaining a revision petition against the rejection of the review application by the Additional Commissioner, considering it as a revisional order in the matter of assessment.

The Tribunal proceeded with the case in the absence of the respondent, who did not appear despite due intimation. The State Representative argued that the Tribunal erred in entertaining the revision cases against the Additional Commissioner's order of March 10, 1970, as it did not amount to a final revisional order. The Additional Commissioner's order merely rejected the review without altering the previous revisional orders, which remained untouched. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly considered it a revisional order under section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act. The Tribunal's decision was deemed erroneous, as the order in question did not qualify as a final revisional order, as required by law.

Ultimately, the Tribunal answered the reference question in the negative, stating that it was incorrect in entertaining the revision petitions against the rejection of the review application by the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision was deemed flawed as it mistakenly considered the refusal to review the revisional orders as a revisional order itself. The case was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all members of the Tribunal concurred with the decision to answer the reference negatively.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the distinction between a review application and a revisional order, emphasizing the necessity for a final revisional order to be eligible for revision before the Tribunal. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the requirement for a clear basis for entertaining revision petitions in taxation matters.