1992 (7) TMI 305 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision before Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision filed against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, which dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, stating that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act. The central issue in this revision pertains to an amendment that came into force on November 1, 1982, which amended section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, expanding the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings to revise, modify, or set aside orders or proceedings prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

The petitioner filed a revision under section 32 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner against orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, levying penalties under section 10-A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the petition, citing the restriction imposed by the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1982, which limited the Deputy Commissioner's revision powers to cases where the proceeding recorded is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the High Court found that the order of the Tribunal was not sustainable in law. The Court noted that the order of assessment was passed before the November 1, 1982 amendment, granting the petitioner the right to seek revision before the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 as it stood then. The subsequent amendment, effective from November 1, 1982, curtailed this right, but the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to file a revision based on the law prevailing at the time of the assessment order. The Court relied on the decision in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1953] 4 STC 114 to support its conclusion.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, with due notice to the petitioner. The Court made no order regarding costs, thereby concluding the case in favor of the petitioner.