9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to pay sales tax on any of the sales, allegedly involved in the execution of building contracts. Notwithstanding their contention, the petitioners on 1st December, 1953, were assessed to sales tax and the amount levied was Rs. 3,547-9-0 for the quarters ending 31st December, 1952, and 31st March, 1953, and Rs. 798-10-0 for the quarter 1st April, 1953, to 30th June, 1953. Certain penalties were also levied, which were subsequently set aside, but since nothing turns on that fact it needs no elaboration. Appeal and revision petition were filed and ultimately by an order dated 22nd November, 1956, the Chief Commissioner upheld the contention of the petitioners and decided that they were not dealers within the meaning of the said Act and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions have been raised: (1) The Chief Commissioner has no power of review. (2) Even if such a power inheres in him, it cannot be exercised to correct a mere error of law. (3) The Chief Commissioner is not competent to review the order in view of bar of limitation as provided in rule 66(2) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951. I think the matter can be disposed of in favour of the petitioners on the first contention. It is not disputed that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Deep Chand and Another v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, and Another[1964] 66 P.L.R. 318., it is not open to the Chief Commissioner to review his order in exercise of any inherent powers. The short question that, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject and/or intention of the Legislature. It is no doubt true that even in construing fiscal statutes a just medium must always be drawn between a view of, the revenue laws, which treats them as harsh enactments to be circumvented wherever possible, and a view under which such statutes acquire an expansive quality at the hands of the Courts and may be made to reach out and bring within its purview, men and matters, which, it is only conjectured may have been within their intent. This requirement, however, does not in any way affect the principle applied in the interpretation of all fiscal statutes that whenever there is an ambiguity it must be resolved in favour of the subject. I would rather walk on the trodden path and hold that a burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while interpreting a fiscal statute, even the plain reading of the said two provisions, namely, sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 20, demonstrates the artificiality of the suggestion made on behalf of the revenue. Only one order revising the order of the Commissioner is contemplated under subsection (3) and it is that order and that order alone which can be made subject-matter of reference to the High Court. An order passed on review cannot but be an order made under sub-section (4) of section 20 as the Chief Commissioner by passing an order under sub-section (3) exhausts his powers and is no more competent under that sub-section to pass another order. Am I then to hold that though the order passed in revision under sub-section (3) of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
