9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer was revised by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his powers under section 32 of the Act on 14th September, 1971. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was given effect to by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III, by proceedings dated 22nd September, 1971. The Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, by notice dated 31st August, 1976, called upon the appellants to show cause why the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III, dated 22nd September, 1971, should not be revised. The appellants offered their explanation putting forward several contentions objecting to the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to revise the order referred to above. Overruling the objections, the Board of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14th September, 1971, is not one of the orders which could be revised under section 34 of the Act. As a matter of fact, the order dated 22nd September, 1971, of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer is not one passed under any of the provisions of the Act, but is passed under rule 32(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, by way of implementing or giving effect to the decision of the Deputy Commissioner rendered under section 32 of the Act on 14th September, 1971. Consequently, it is clear that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the order dated 22nd September, 1971, of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer. Even assuming that the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he right to and he was bound to, rectify the error which the Joint Commercial Tax Officer was alleged to have committed in the original order dated 26th December, 1969. The original order dated 26th December, 1969, is a statutory order, subject to appeal and revision and if the remedies provided in the Act with reference to that order had not been pursued within the time prescribed by the law, certainly it was not open to the Board of Revenue to take advantage of the subsequent consequential order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer dated 22nd September, 1971, for the purpose of interfering with the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer dated 26th December, 1969. It is not in dispute that the period of limitation available for the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
