9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icture "Maruthanattu Elavarasi". It is common ground that it was only on this single occasion that the petitioner has transferred certain rights in the picture during the entire assessment year. The original order of assessment was passed on 29th August, 1966. He filed an appeal on 29th September, 1966. This was rejected in limine on the ground that there was a delay of one day in the presentation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition cited. It sees no reason to interfere on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the question of granting stay of collection of tax and penalty does not arise." It is as against this, the present writ petition has been filed. The challenged order is no doubt non-speaking. The petitioner in his representation relied on a decision of this court in A. V. Meiyappan v. Commissioner of Commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arn Stores v. State of Madras[1963] 14 S.T.C. 724., a Division Bench of this Court under similar circumstances said: "The Board is not prevented from exercising its power of revision under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, solely for the reason that a belated appeal has been filed to the Appellate Tribunal." The learned Judges also expressed the view that to reject a petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment made by the assessing officer on 29th August, 1966. When its jurisdiction was sought it rejected the petition observing that it sees no reason to interfere. The order ex facie does not contain any reason and is, therefore, non-speaking. In these circumstances it is difficult to hold that the Board of Revenue did exercise its jurisdiction when it ought to have. In these circumstances, the rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
