9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect to this order, and modified his previous assessment order on 19th December, 1957, in the light of the order of the revising authority. The Board of Revenue initiated further proceedings by way of revision under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This provision enables the Board to take proceedings suo motu in respect of proceedings and orders passed by the departmental officers. In the opinion of the Board, the Commercial Tax Officer had allowed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 3,67,409-1-0 under inter-State sales wrongly. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the exemption granted by the departmental officers should not be cancelled. The petitioner received the show cause notice on the 14th December, 1961, appeared before the Board and prayed for time for the production of the account books relating to the business and also other records to justify the benefit of exemption obtained by him before the lower authorities. But the Board did not grant any time to the petitioner, and by its order dated 18th December, 1961, overruled the contention of the petitioner. The Board observed that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence in sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is hardly any ground in support of the view taken by the Board. The short question which now arises is whether the Board, acting in exercise of its powers under section 34, was competent to pass the order 4 years beyond the date of the order which was in fact revised. We have necessarily to refer to section 34, which, in so far as it is material for the present purpose, reads: "(1) The Board of Revenue may, of its own motion, call for and examine an order passed or proceeding recorded by the appropriate authority ..... and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Board of Revenue shall not pass any order under subsection (1) if- (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) more than four years have have expired after the passing of the order. (3) No order under this section adversely affecting a person shall be passed unless that person has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Now the crucial words are "the Board of Revenue shall not pass any order if more than four years have expired after the passing of the order". The only meaning which these words convey, quite ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision. Section 34 of that Act, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, may be set out: "(1) The Commissioner may, of his own motion or on application by an assessee, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act which has been taken by any authority subordinate to him and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit: Provided that he shall not pass any order prejudicial to an assessee without hearing him or giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided............ (2) The Commissioner shall not revise any order under sub-section (1) if- Since reported at [1962] 46 I.T.R. 251. (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) the order has been made more than three years previously." There is certainly a difference in phraseology between section 34 of that Act and section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Agricultural Income-tax Act provides that the Commissioner shall not revise any order if that order had been made more than three years previously. The words in section 34 of the General Sales Tax Act are "the Board of Revenue shall not pass any order un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fixed. The right of the assessee to obtain relief by applying for revision should not depend on the hazard of the revising authority disposing of the matter within a particular period and cannot be defeated by the failure of the authority to discharge the statutory functions." Turning now to the scheme of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it is quite clear that the powers of revision either by the Deputy Commissioner under sections 32 and 33 or of the Board of Revenue under sections 34 and 35 fall into two categories. One is suo motu powers of the revising authority, and the other is the power which can be exercised at the instance of the aggrieved assessee. Section 34 is the provision relating to the suo motu powers of the Board of Revenue. We have already extracted that provision. Section 35 enables the assessee to approach the Board of Revenue for the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. A comparison of that provision with section 34 will be quite useful in determining the true meaning of section 34. Section 35, in so far as it is material, runs as follows: "(1) Any person objecting to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
