2003 (11) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of time for filing revision under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Interpretation of the term "Deputy Commissioner" in the context of filing revisions.
3. Requirement for the State of Tamil Nadu to be represented by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Communication of orders by the Tribunal to the State representative.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal held that the revision under section 38 should be filed by the Deputy Commissioner within the period starting from the date of service of the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the State's representative. The computation of time should not begin from the date of service on the Deputy Commissioner, as argued by the Revenue.

2. The term "Deputy Commissioner" in section 38 does not refer to all Deputy Commissioners but to a person holding a responsible position in a higher rank. The regulations require the State of Tamil Nadu to be named in the appeal, represented by the State representative appointed by the State Government. The service of orders on the State representative is considered as service on the State itself.

3. The State, as a party to the appeal, receives notices through its State representative, who is responsible for coordinating with the Deputy Commissioner to ensure timely filing of revisions. The Deputy Commissioner, as the officer competent to act on behalf of the State, does not have the authority to compute the limitation period from the date of receiving the order.

4. Orders passed by the Tribunal are required to be communicated to various parties, including the Deputy Commissioner. However, the service on the State representative is deemed as service on the State of Tamil Nadu. The Deputy Commissioner acts as an agent of the State and does not have any special status apart from being identified as the competent officer for filing revisions.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the computation of time for filing revisions under section 38, emphasizing the role of the State representative in coordinating with the Deputy Commissioner. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the interpretation of relevant provisions and regulations governing the filing of revisions in sales tax matters.