9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li, on 31st March, 1952. Aggrieved by this he went in appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer, Srikakulam, who was then the Appellate Authority, claiming deduction of certain items from the turnover. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, allowed certain items and disallowed certain others. Now, we are concerned only with an item of Rs. 16,590-8-0 in respect of which the Commercial Tax Officer had held against the respondent but failed to include the same in calculating the aggregate turnover in the order. This order was passed on 7th June, 1953. The respondent went in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which gave him relief to the extent of Rs. 10,000 and directed the original authority to make an assessment on that basis. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commissioner of Commercial Taxes concerned. (3) Application under section 12(2)(ii) of the principal Act. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Appellate Tribunal. (4) Application under section 12(3)(ii) of the principal Act. Board of Revenue. Appellate Tribunal. (ii) Against an order passed or proceeding recorded before the date of commencement of this Act under the provisions of the principal Act, by the authority mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, an appeal shall lie to the authority mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof, within sixty days from the date on which the order was served on the dealer, and any such appeal shall be deemed to be an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions instituted before the date of enforcement of the Amending Act are fully defined and cannot, therefore, go beyond what is specified in the relevant provision. In spite of the same it appears that on 28th September, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner, under rule 18, sought to correct the mistake committed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 7th June, 1953. The respondent took exception to the same and went in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which, as already stated, allowed his appeal on the ground that having regard to the clear language of rule 18, the act complained of was beyond the competence of the Deputy Commissioner. It is this finding that has been canvassed on behalf of the State before us. Rule 18(1) of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs or revive those proceedings which were finally settled. Having regard to the scheme of the amending Act, it is obvious that the extent to which the Act was intended to be retroactive in its operation has been fully brought out in its various provisions. But section 13 has not gone back to the extent now desired. Thus against the clear language and intendment of the enactment, the powers of the Deputy Commissioner could not reach back to acts done by the Commercial Tax Officer. In this view of the law, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal. This revision case fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
