9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957 (Mysore Act No. 25 of 1957) which came into force on 1st October, 1957. It was provided by section 40 of the said new Mysore Sales Tax Act that all pending proceedings under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, should be continued as if that Act had not been repealed. It was also provided by sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Mysore Act No. 25 of 1957 that the Government could specify the authority which should exercise the functions exercisable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. By a notification made by the Government under section 40(2) of the Mysore Act No. 25 of 1957, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was specified as the authority who should exercise the functions exercisable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The application for the restoration of the revision petition which had been presented by the assessee to the Board of Revenue was heard by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by virtue of his appointment under the provisions of section 40(2) of Mysore Act 25 of 1957. He dismissed that application for the reason that the Board having dismissed the revision petition presented by the assessee for default, he could not restore the revision petition which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion open as to whether the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to whom it stood so transferred had or had not the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of that review petition. The position as a result of the decisions in the above cases is that after the Board of Revenue ceased to function, a revision petition presented under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, which was pending before it when it ceased to exist, has to be heard by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore. It is also likewise clear that a review petition which was pending before the Board of Revenue in respect of such revision petition which it had disposed of under the Mysore Board of Revenue Act stood transferred to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal although the question as to whether that Tribunal could hear and dispose of the review petition was left open and not decided. Mr. Ullal does not, in this case, ask us to take a different view on the above two matters. But he urges that the application made by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue in this case which was pending before it when it ceased to function was not a revision petition but only an application for its restoration and so was not covered by the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication of any party affected, review any order passed by itself and pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems necessary: Provided that no such application made by any party shall be entertained unless the Board is satisfied that there has been a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or that there has been any other sufficient reason." The rest of the section is not material for our present purpose. It is clear from that section that before the Board could review its own orders, it should be satisfied that there has been a discovery of new and important matter or evidence or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on its face or that there has been any other sufficient reason, which, it is plain, has to be analogous to the other grounds mentioned in that section. It can hardly be contended that when the Board is asked to restore a revision petition which had been dismissed for default, it is asked to exercise a power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Board of Revenue Act. That section provides, among other matters, that the State Government may be notification make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. It is therefore plain that rule 24 was a rule made for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Act. One of the purposes of the Act was that the Board of Revenue should hear a revision petition presented under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Act itself confers no power on the Board in express terms to restore a revision petition dismissed by it for default. That being the position, rule 24 which only provides for the manner in which an application for the re-admission or the restoration of an application dismissed for default of appearance should be made could not be regarded as having been made for the purpose of carrying out any purpose other than those specified in the Mysore Board of Revenue Act, one of which is that the Board of Revenue shall have the power to hear and dispose of revision petitions presented under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. Any other construction would make the position of the petitioner worse since it would le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the end of this case. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in this case, in disposing of that application, made, what I regard as a clearly Since reported as N. Varadachar v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore [1960] 11 S.T.C. 94. unjustifiable order. He dismisses that application on the ground that since the Board of Revenue had already dismissed the petitioner's revision petition which it did for the default of the petitioner and his counsel, he had no power to do anything in the matter. The conclusion which he reached in that way was clearly the result of a misconception in his mind. It did not occur to him that the jurisdiction to restore a revision petition dismissed for default, forming as I have held part of the revisional jurisdiction which is now conferred on him under the provisions of section 40 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, it was his duty to dispose of the application for the restoration of the revision petition on its merits without declining such jurisdiction merely on the ground that the Board of Revenue had already dismissed the revision petition for default. In the result, this writ petition has to be allowed although not on all the grounds which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
