9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1948-49, which is not the assessment year in question, different rates of sales tax were applicable to different commodities on different dates. It is not in dispute that on 1st April, 1949, the first date of the assessment year in question, all the turnover of all those commodities was liable to sales tax at 0-0-6 per rupee which is higher than the rate applicable to them in an earlier part of the previous assessment year 1948-49. The assessee was assessed to the tax in the assessment year in question at the rate of 0-0-6 per rupee. It filed an appeal against the assessment order which was dismissed by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax on 5th June, 1960. It was contended before him that the turnover of the commodities for the earlier portio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected. According to the questions formulated by it, it could have been directed against both the orders. The order passed on 28th November, 1950, did not deal with the merits of the revision application or the assessment order at all; it was dismissed on a preliminary objection on holding that it was not maintainable at all. Therefore, no question about the merits of the assessment could be said to arise out of that order passed by the Judge (Revisions). If any question of law relating to the assessability could be said to arise, it could be said to arise out of the order dated 29th November, 1950, passed by the Judge (Revisions) refusing to revise the Judge (Appeals) order. Now, one application under section 11(1) could not be filed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has been filed and dismissed?" Sri S.D. Agarwal contended that the statement of the case is incomplete inasmuch as it does not contain any facts relating to the first question formulated by this court in its order made under section 11(3). It was rightly pointed out by Sri Raja Ram Agarwal that that question does not arise out of the order of the Judge (Revisions) dated 28th November, 1950. It is the case of Sri S.D. Agarwal himself that the application under section 11(1) was directed against the order of the Judge (Revisions) dated 28th November, 1950, and neither against the other order dated 29th November, 1950, nor against both the orders taken together. As we pointed out the only question of law that could arise out of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment order. The revising authority has jurisdiction over an order made by "any appellate or assessing authority". The word "or" joining "appellate authority" with "assessing authority" is capable of two interpretations and we have to choose one of them. One is that it treats "appellate authority" and "assessing authority" as equals, either of which may be availed of by the applicant for revision at his choice and the other is that they are alternatives, one to be used only when the other is not available. It is obvious that the Legislature intended the word to mean the latter and not the former and that what it meant was that the revising authority has jurisdiction over an order of an appellate authority and if such an order doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment he does not profess to exercise jurisdiction. No useful purpose is served by revising the assessing authority's order when the appellate order remains in tact and in force. There cannot be two contradictory orders in the same proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the revision filed by the assessee against the order of the assessing authority, which had merged in the order passed by the Judge (Appeals) and did not exist, was not maintainable under the section 10(3) and our answer to the question is in the negative. Sri S.D. Agarwal raised a new point and it is that the assessment order was passed before 26th January, 1950, the date on which the Constitution came into force. The appeal was filed subsequently but was pending on 26t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
