9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 117 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order passed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III, exercising his power of suo motu revision under section 34 of the TNGST Act, 1959 - powers conferred on the Appellate Authority and the powers conferred on the Revisional Authority who has exercised the power of suo motu Revision - Held that - the Statute gives very wide powers to the Appellate Authority in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the TNGST Act. The Appellate Authority can revise and re-write the order of assessment and whatever discretion which has been conferred on the Assessing Officer as well. The power of suo motu Revision conferred on the Joint Commissioner is exercisable for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the Revenue under section 34 of the Act. The order passed by the Revisional Authority solely based upon the report of the Inspecting Officers could not have been a basis for disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which decision was arrived at based on the facts placed before the Appellate Authority. Further, the Revisional Authority does not dispute the factual position and if such is the case, no case has been made out for reviewing the order passed by the Appellate Authority. An appeal ought to have been filed before the Special Tribunal - at the time when the Writ Petition was filed there was no Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the petitioner has approached the Court - the Writ Petition is pending from 2004, matter not relegated to the Tribunal - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of suo motu revision under TNGST Act by Joint Commissioner Analysis: 1. Powers of Appellate Authority vs. Revisional Authority: The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNGST Act, challenged the order of suo motu revision by the Joint Commissioner against the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the Act has wide powers to confirm, reduce, enhance, annul assessments, or pass other orders. Appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment proceedings, allowing the Authority to revise orders and exercise discretion conferred on the Assessing Officer. The Full Bench decision of the Court supports this view, affirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. Special Powers of Joint Commissioner: Section 34 of the Act confers special powers on the Joint Commissioner to call for and examine orders or proceedings if prejudicial to Revenue's interest. The Joint Commissioner can initiate revision proceedings to safeguard Revenue's interest. In this case, the Joint Commissioner exercised suo motu revision powers against the petitioner's appeal allowed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Validity of Revisional Authority's Action: The Revisional Authority did not interfere with the factual findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but relied on an Inspecting Officer's statement predating the Appellate order. The Revisional Authority failed to conduct an independent inquiry, relying solely on the Inspector's report. The Court considered the Inspector's report as an initial information report, insufficient to dismiss the Appellate Authority's well-reasoned order. The Revisional Authority did not dispute the factual position, failing to show illegality or prejudice to Revenue's interest. 4. Judicial Review and Forum for Appeal: The Revisional Authority's decision was solely based on the Inspector's report, lacking a basis to disbelieve the petitioner's stand before the Appellate Authority. The Court held that no case was made for reviewing the Appellate Authority's order. The Additional Government Pleader suggested an appeal to the Special Tribunal, but as the Tribunal was not in place when the Writ Petition was filed, the Court retained jurisdiction over the matter. 5. Final Decision: Considering the prolonged pendency of the Writ Petition since 2004, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order without costs, as the Revisional Authority's reliance on the Inspector's report lacked legal basis for interference with the Appellate Authority's decision.
|
