9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any order passed or proceeding recorded by the Commercial Tax Officer under sub-section (1) or any other provisions of this Act and against which no appeal had been preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under section 12-A. The revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner could, therefore, be invoked either in respect of an order made by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal against which a further appeal had not been taken to the Tribunal or in respect of an order made by the Commercial Tax Officer in the exercise of his powers of revision. In so far as the appellate order of the Commercial Tax Officer is concerned, the assessees could, therefore, (a) file an appeal to the Tribunal under section 12-A; or (b) if they do not file an appeal to the Tribunal, they could move the Deputy Commissioner by an application and invoke his powers of revision. What the assessees did in the case was to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner praying that the Deputy Commissioner might call for the order of the Commercial Tax Officer made on appeal and examine it in terms of section 12(2) of the Act. This application of the assessees was pending before the Deputy Commissioner on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, appeal, revision or other proceeding under this Act if it had been in force on the date on which such application, appeal, revision or other proceeding was made or preferred." The entire argument of Mr. Chandrasekhara Sastri for the appellants is based upon this provision. He claims that the revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner which was pending on the date of the commencement of the 1959 Act should have been transferred to the appropriate authority who in such a case is the Appellate Tribunal. It seems to us that on an examination of the provisions of the Act and in particular the above sub-section, this contention has to be negatived. While under the 1939 Act a person could either appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or move by way of revision before the Deputy Commissioner and canvass the correctness of an order made by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal under section 11 of that Act, the 1959 Act effected a departure from that position. This Act gave no right to an assessee to move any authority by way of revision challenging an order made on appeal from an order of assessment. The order by the appropriate appellate authority, who corresponds to the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order made in appeal. If that is so, we are unable to see to whom, following the strict language of this sub-section, the revision petition that was pending could in law have been transferred. The argument of the learned counsel that while two rights, viz., one of appeal and one of revision, were available to the assessees under the old Act and only one right, viz., that of an appeal, is available to him under the new Act, the revision petition under the old Act should be construed as an appeal under the new Act and disposed of as such, derives no assistance from the manner in which this sub-section has been couched. The provisions of the new Act deliberately cut one of two remedies which were available under the old Act. The further argument that since all the rights which had accrued to the assessees under the 1939 Act are saved by the proviso to sub-section (1), they cannot be denied the relief which would have flowed to them as a result of that revision petition, does not appear to be sound. It is true that under the proviso to sub-section (1), the rights under the old Act were saved. But that is not to say that the Legislature had no competence to deprive a person of a right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are, therefore, satisfied that the revision application which the assessees had made under the 1939 Act to the Deputy Commissioner could not receive any disposal after the coming into force of the new Act, and that right of revision must be held to have lapsed. That revision could not be equated to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It follows that the Board of Revenue was not by the terms of section 34 of the new Act read with section 61(2) thereof prevented from exercising its revisional jurisdiction. This petition coming on for further hearing the Court delivered the following judgment: SRINIVASAN, J.-The question that remains to be considered, after we had decided the preliminary point of jurisdiction in relation to proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner on the date of repeal of the 1939 Act, is whether in the case of the sales of rice by the assessee to dealers in Travancore State, there was delivery outside this State for the purpose of consumption in the Travancore State. Before the Board, a turnover of Rs. 86,300 and odd was in dispute. In respect of a turnover of Rs. 2,395 admittedly there is no evidence of any delivery. The Board, however, took the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
