9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover of Rs. 70,903.69 on the ground that the said turnover has not been shown to be second sales of fertilisers. The appellant aggrieved against the said order of assessment so far as it related to the rejection of its claim for exemption on the said sum of Rs. 70,000 and odd, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered the question of exemption as regards the said sum of Rs. 70,903.69 and held that though the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for its dealing in second sales of fertilisers, it is entitled to get the benefit of the exemption as a result of the decision of this court in Rathinaswamy Chettiar's case[1962] 13 S.T.C. 419. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could interfere with the order of the assessing authority. The contention of the revenue is that the appellate authority has the power to enhance the assessment while disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee and, therefore, the order of the appellate authority should be deemed to cover the entirety of the assessment and that if the order of the appellate authority is construed in that light, it could be taken that the entire assessment order is before the Board of Revenue in the suo motu revision initiated against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But we are not in a position to accept the stand taken by the revenue in this case. It is not the case of the revenue that before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that the original order of assessment got merged in the order passed on appeal and that thereafter the original assessing authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the operation of the order as confirmed on appeal. That case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case where the subject-matter of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was very much limited and did not cover the entirety of the turnover which was before the assessing authority. A question similar to the one arising here came up for consideration before this court for the first time in Madura Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras[1962] 13 S.T.C. 124. In that case also, the scope of suo motu revision by the Board of Revenue came up for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that, therefore, the power of revision conferred under section 12 should be exercised by the revisional authority for satisfying itself of the legality or propriety of the order of the inferior tribunal and while purporting to satisfy itself about the legality or propriety of the order, the revising authority cannot pass an order which the appellate authority could not have legally passed. Later, the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Madura Mills Co. Ltd.[1967] 19 S.T.C. 144 (S.C.). has confirmed the view taken by this court in the decision in Madura Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras[1962] 13 S.T.C. 124. In view of the above decisions, it is not possible for us to uphold the order of the Board of Revenue, in so far as it seeks to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
