9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the facts of the other cases in which the above questions arise. The appellant, who has a shop in the market at Anakapalle, carries on business in jaggery and other commodities. Various growers of sugar-cane convert sugar-cane grown by them into jaggery and then bring the jaggery to the shop of the appellant. The appellant takes the jaggery, grades it into different qualities and sells the same in its sole discretion to various parties. The appellant collects from the purchaser the price of the goods sold, kolagaram at Rs. 1.50 per 100 maunds, dharmam at one anna per 15 maunds, valtar at 1/2 per cent. and sales tax at Rs. 3 per cent. on the total, and where the buyer is not a member of the Anakapalle Merchants' Association, a cess of one anna for every 15 maunds of jaggery is also collected. To the ryot, the appellant pays the price after deducting therefrom its commission which varies between Rs. 3.12 to Rs. 6.25 per cent. including gumastha rusum at 2 annas per cent. and kolagaram at Rs. 3 or 3.50 per cent. Once the goods are delivered to the appellant, the appellant assumes responsibility therefor. The goods of the several growers are mixed up and sold according to quality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... designed for the benefit of the public; as such, the appellants had a right to move the Board of Revenue to rectify the error of law. In rejecting the applications summarily and without giving any reasons, the Board failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and it should, therefore, be directed to consider the same. The proceedings before the Board of Revenue, it is contended, are quasi-judicial proceedings and, therefore, the appellants should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Inasmuch as these contentions depend upon the content of the revisional power under section 20, we read that section as below: "The Board of Revenue may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to it, under the provisions of this Act, including sub-section (2) of this section, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in East Asiatic Company (India) Ltd. v. State of Madras[1956] 7 S.T.C. 299. cited a passage in the judgment of Ramaswami, J., as to what suo motu jurisdiction implied. At page 315, the learned Judge observed: "The jurisdiction of suo motu revision is not cribbed and cabined or confined by conditions and qualifications. The purpose of such an amplitude being given to suo motu revisions appears to be as much to safeguard the interests of the exchequer as the interests of the assessee. The State can never be the appellant and if there is an order against the State to its prejudice, and naturally the assessee in whose favour the order is passed does not prefer an appeal, the State would suffer unless its interests are safeguarded by the exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction as the one given to the authorities above-mentioned. So, when this revisional jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Board of Revenue under section 12 (of the Madras General Sales Tax Act) and when extensive rule-making powers have been granted to the Government under section 19 and when as a result of the practical working of the Act the Government have found that to safeguard the interests of the exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub-clause (ii) of section 12(3) of the Madras Act contained another mode in which the revisional jurisdiction could be brought into operation and that was by an application by a party while sub-clause (i) enabled the Board by itself without reference to a party to take cognizance of orders passed by subordinate authorities and to exercise revisional jurisdiction over them. It was pointed out by the Bench that the Andhra Act has made a departure from the Madras Act by omitting clause (ii) of section 12(3) with the result that the power of the Board of Revenue to entertain revision petitions at the instance of the aggrieved parties is omitted, and an appeal to the High Court is only provided against an order passed suo motu. It was also pointed out that as the provision now stands the revisional jurisdiction vested in the Board of Revenue can be exercised suo motu only and not on application by a party and the right of appeal vested in the High Court is confined only to the orders of the Board passed suo motu. It may be pointed out that under section 19 of the Act a right of appeal to the prescribed authority within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e illegal orders. In support of this contention they have cited Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.[1950] S.C.R. 536. Kania, C.J., at page 544 on a reference to the observations of Lord Cairns in the case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford[1880] 5 App. Cas. 214, 222. said that those observations are entitled to great respect. In the case before the Supreme Court the question was whether the power conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by section 57 of the Stamp Act to make a reference to the High Court is intended for the benefit of the Revenue Authority alone or whether it enures also for the benefit of the party affected by the assessment. It was held on the language of that section that the power was coupled with a duty to make a reference when the authority is called upon to do so by the party affected and that if he declines to do so it is within the power of the Court to direct him to discharge that duty and make a reference to the Court. Section 57(1) of the Stamp Act is in the following terms: "The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case referred to it under section 56, sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which was rejected by a short and laconic order which reads as follows: "Government right in declaring no jurisdiction. It is wrong to say that respondent had withdrawn the application voluntarily. Attitude of the society unjust. Admittedly the promoters were members of Everest Co., and they wanted Rs. 3,000 from each one for themselves. Societies are not meant for self aggrandizement. No ground to interfere. Rejected." Their Lordships considered the question whether the Government was right in law in declining to interfere because it has no revisional jurisdiction in such a matter, the answer to which depended upon the construction of section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. After examining the other relevant provisions of the Act, section 154 was extracted, which is as follows: "Section 154. Power of State Government and Registrar to call for proceedings of subordinate officers and to pass orders thereon. The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to them, except those referred to in sub-section (9) of section 149, for the purpose of satisfyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, that Government can exercise its powers under section 154 in all cases with one exception only and that the finality of the order under section 23(3) does not restrict the exercise of the power. The word 'final' in this context means that the order is not subject to an ordinary appeal or revision but it does not touch the special power legislatively conferred on Government." After distinguishing the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Punjab v. The Tribune Trust, Lahore[1948] 16 I.T.R. 214; A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 102., it was held that the words of the two enactments are not materially equal. Hidayatullah, J., proceeded to state: "As Government is not compelled to take action, unless it thinks fit, the party who moves Government cannot claim that he has a right of appeal or revision. On the other hand, Government should welcome such applications because they draw the attention of Government to cases in some of which Government may be interested to intervene. In many statutes, as for example the two major procedural Codes, such language has not only not inhibited the making of applications to the High Court, but has been considered to give a right to obtain intervention, al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent's case, that it affords a claim to relief. As has been already pointed out, appropriate relief is specifically given by other sections; it is not possible to interpret section 33 as conferring a general relief." It is probably as a consequence of this decision that section 33-A was added in the Income-tax Act, 1922, giving the assessee also a right to move the Commissioner to exercise revisional powers. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer[1965] 57 I.T.R. 349. is on section 33-A and could therefore afford little assistance. The unreported decision of the Supreme Court, to which we have referred, as well as the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council, though no doubt on provisions in different Acts which are pari materia, sets at rest even a lurking doubt as to the ambit of the powers conferred under section 20 of the Act. It is unnecessary in this view to decide the other questions namely whether the assessee has a right to have personal hearing. In the view we have taken, the revisions before the Board are not maintainable and the appeals are also not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
