9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferring the appeal. The assessee thought that there were obvious errors in the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 24th January, 1967. On 10th February, 1967, therefore, it filed an application for review before the Deputy Commissioner praying to him to review the order dated 24th January, 1967, and entertain the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 11th September, 1967, rejected the review application and refused to review the order dated 24th January, 1967, and entertain the appeal. The assessee went up in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. One of the objections taken on behalf of the revenue before the Tribunal was that under the Act the revision filed before the Tribunal from the order dated 11th Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, an order passed on an appeal under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 30 may, on application, be revised- (a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and (b) by the Tribunal, if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner." Sub-section (2) confers a power of revision on the Tribunal to revise any revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 31(1)(a). It is not necessary to refer to other subsections of section 31 as no other sub-section is relevant for determination of the question before us. I will now read section 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to the assessee to go to the Tribunal in revision from the order dated 24th January, 1967. But the assessee did not choose to do so. 4.. The Tribunal has relied upon a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay v. S.C. Cambatta Co. Ltd.[1956] 29 I.T.R. 118; A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 509., in support of its view that revision was competent. In my opinion, the ratio of the Bombay decision is not at all applicable to the point at issue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had passed an appellate order. On being asked to state a case by the High Court, it stated a case on the question of law, on which it was asked to state. The question of law referred was answered in favour of the assessee in the first referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and a fresh order is passed, then revision under section 31(1) of the Act would be competent; but such a revision from an order refusing to review and maintaining the original order intact is not competent. 5.. For the reasons stated above, I would answer the question of law referred to this court in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. I accordingly hold that the Tribunal was not legally competent to entertain the revision filed before it against the order dated 11th August, 1967, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi, on the review application of the dealer. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in this reference. N.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
