9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal for hearing on those questions. It is true that a question as to the vires of section 40(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1957, was raised, but it is now settled by decisions of this Court that the question as to the vires of a statute which a taxing officer has to administer cannot be raised before him. - Civil Appeal No. 396, 397, 398, 399 of 1965, - - - Dated:- 23-9-1956 - SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND BHARGAVA V. JJ. K. Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. B.P.L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate (R.H. Dhebar with him), for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. -Circo's Coffee Company-hereinafter called "the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the four quarters. The Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had not recorded any "independent finding of his own" and that he had passed the order revising the assessment merely on the basis of the order passed by the Inspecting Officer. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the State of Mysore preferred revision petitions to the High Court of Mysore under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The High Court remanded the cases to the Tribunal for disposal according to law, holding that the Tribunal had acted improperly in disposing of the appeals filed by the assessee on a technical ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has appealed to this Court. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948) the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner were authorised by section 15 to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order. Proceeding in this behalf could be commenced either suo motu or on an application preferred to those officers. The assessment orders in respect of the four quarters were made by the Sales Tax Officer between December 19, 1955, and June 28, 1956. The Deputy Commissioner commenced proceeding under section 15(1)(i) for revision of those orders of the Sales Tax Officer. The Mysore Sales Tax Act ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes alone to exercise the powers of revision under section 15 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948). Whether as a result of the notification the power of the Deputy Commissioner was divested is a question which we are not called upon to decide in these appeals. On December 18, 1958, the Government of Mysore issued a fresh notification restoring the power to the Deputy Commissioner under section 15(1) of the Act. It may be recalled that the Deputy Commissioner passed his first order on December 8, 1958, revising the order of the Sales Tax Officer and imposing liability for additional tax. The Tribunal in appeal at the instance of the assessee accepted the contention that the Deputy Commissioner had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were called upon to consider only the correctness of the decision on the third question which was decided by the Tribunal. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal on the third contention and remanded the case for disposal according to law. The use of the expression "disposal according to law" apparently gave an opportunity to the assessee to raise contentions which were either raised and negatived or were not raised at the earlier hearing before the Tribunal. The assessee sought to re-agitate the two contentions which were previously raised and negatived by the Tribunal, and also sought to contend that the Deputy Commissioner could not exercise the power under section 15 of Act 46 of 1948 after the repeal of that Act, because the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly did not allow those grounds to be raised. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction also did not allow those contentions to be raised. The question was one of discretion of the Tribunal and the High Court, and this Court in an appeal with special leave will certainly not interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal and the High Court. It is true that the High Court observed that the order of remand made at an earlier stage restricted the scope of the enquiry to the merits of the dispute between the parties and no fresh questions could be raised before the Tribunal. Assuming that the High Court was not strictly right in the view that it took, if the Tribunal did not allow the assessee to raise the questions which it sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
