9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on petitions on the ground that it was not a competent authority to hear revisions under section 18 of the Cochin Act. This writ petition has been filed to direct the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the revisions under section 18 of the Cochin Act, to quash the order exhibit P-1 of the Board of Revenue, and to direct it to restore the revision petitions and return the same to the petitioner for presenting the same to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to be appointed by the State Government. 2.. The Cochin Sales Tax Act, 1121, was repealed and replaced by the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, which came into force on 30th May, 1950. Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Act reads: "25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax under the Cochin Act, the petitioner's counsel contends that it can be done under section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Act; and he relies on a decision of a learned Single judge of this court in P.V.M. Koya v. The Sales Tax Officer, KozhikodeO.P. No. 975 of 1960. That is a case in which, under more or less similar circumstances, the learned Judge issued a writ directing the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the revision petitions under section 18 of the Cochin Act; and that decision fully supports the petitioner. But I am unable to follow that decision in view of a later Division Bench decision of this court in Paramu v. Sales Tax Officer[1967] 19 S.T.C. 138; 1966 K.L.J. 728. In that case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lished without any forum substituted in its place for the disposal of pending matters or for the lodgment of appeals, the vested right perishes no doubt.'" The above decision applies to the instant case; and it negatives the petitioner's contention. I may make one observation in respect of the decision of the learned Single Judge in P.V.M. Koya v. Sales Tax Officer, KozhikodeO.P. No. 975 of 1960., which has been relied on by counsel for the petitioner. Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Act empowers the Government only to do anything necessary for the purpose of removing any difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of that Act. That section has nothing to do with any difficulty that may arise in respect of the assessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
