9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered the said sum of Rs. 50,530.84 from the petitioner. Against this order of the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-1. The appellate authority reduced the amount so demanded by Rs. 17,945,63, with the result, the demand under section 22(3) was reduced to Rs. 32,585.21. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. By that time, it had been decided by this court in Kathan Nadar Company v. State of Madras[1963] 14 S.T.C. 694. and by the Supreme Court in Abdul Quader Co. v. Sales Tax Officer[1964] 15 S.T.C. 403 (S.C.)., that when the dealer himself is not liable to sales tax, the amounts which he collected from his cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, it also contended that it filed a petition on 10th January, 1967, for claiming that exemption and that petition had been dismissed on 23rd January, 1967. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not put forward the claim for exemption at the time when the original assessment was made and, therefore, it could not put forward any such claim at all. He also stated: "It is also seen that the assessing officer has faithfully carried out the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) I, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and, in fact, the appellants have no grievance in that regard. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere on behalf of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 5th January, 1967, merely implemented the order of the Tribunal and as pointed out by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he faithfully carried out the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer dated 5th January, 1967. Section 31 of the Act which alone deals with appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner states that any person objecting to an order passed by the-appropriate authority can appeal. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could have objected to the order dated 5th January, 1967, passed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division I, because that order was merely implementing the success, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Assistant Commissioner stated on the relevant date under sub-section (1) thereof as follows: "Any person objecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under section 4-A, section 12, section 14, section 15, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 16, section 18, section 23, section 27, sub-section (4) of section 41, or sub-section (3) of section 42, may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal against such order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction." Thus, this section enumerates the orders against which appeals can be preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. An order passed under section 36(4) is not one of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
