9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the dealer in the following terms: "I agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee has a right to move the Deputy Commissioner to revise any order finally passed by the assessing authority under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, I feel that it shall be the duty of that officer to satisfy himself whether the merits of the case deserve the intervention of the officer to exercise his powers under that section. In the instant case, the assessee was aggrieved by an order of assessment made by the assessing authority. He ought to have sought statutory remedies under the Act against such an assessment order. He did not avail himself of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4629 and 4630 of 1965, the Tamil Nadu High Court has held that the power to revise an order made by a subordinate should be exercised when even the aggrieved assessee brings it to the notice of the revising authority in order that it may invoke its powers, as long as the petition is not barred by limitation. We therefore think that the power to revise the order vested with the Deputy Commissioner should have been properly exercised." It is in view of this only, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the Tribunal was under a misapprehension that the Deputy Commissioner rejected the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner had declined to interfere by exercising the suo motu power of revision on the facts of the particular case which may also include want of diligence on the part of the assessee. But, that is far different from saying that the Deputy Commissioner can refuse to exercise his powers of revision solely on the ground that the assessee had not been diligent in preferring an appeal. The learned Additional Government Pleader brought to our notice a decision of this court in State of Madras v. Bombay Ammonia Ltd.[1974] 34 S.T.C. 364. and contended that that decision supports the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the present case. We are unable to agree that that decision lays down any such proposition. In that particular case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had not been diligent enough in preferring an appeal. The learned Additional Government Pleader brought to our notice the following passage occurring in the judgment referred to already. This itself is an extract from the judgment of this court in W.P. Nos. 2157 to 2159 and 2180 of 1970. "We do not think that there is any error. The Deputy Commissioner was right in his view that the petitioner having not availed himself of the remedy of appeals under the Act in respect of the assessments made on 31st December, 1966, and 10th February, 1969, he could not, notwithstanding his failure, invoke the revisional jurisdiction." The said observation has to be read in the context of the sentence immediately preceding the extract. That senten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
