9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce the accounts for purposes of final assessment in spite of several notices issued by the assessing officer. The assessing officer made the best judgment assessment fixing the total turnover at Rs. 7,23,083.66 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 4,81,848.24 for each one of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchy, after a delay of 694 days for the first assessment year, and a delay of 433 days for the second assessment year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed both the appeals on the ground that they were not filed in time. There was a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, after a delay of 276 days. The Tribunal held that the delay has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to by the Tribunal. If there is any ambiguity in those judgments, we consider that those ambiguities must be removed so that the authorities may have a clear concept in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act. In view of the fact that the decisions referred to above are those of Division Bench of this Court, we consider that the appropriate procedure to adopt would be to refer these tax cases to a Full Bench for laying down the principles to be applied in the matter of exercise of powers by the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act." That is how the matter has now come before the Full Bench. The first question to be considered is whether suo motu powers of revision under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked by an assessee or an aggrieved person, as the section provides for the exercise of such power voluntarily by the authority. Repelling the contention of the revenue, Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was), held: "I am unable to agree with the contention that suo motu powers are exercisable only if the authority vested with the power is subjectively satisfied about the exercise of such power or if he minds to do so. Circumstances may arise when such authorities vested with judicial functions might inadvertently or by a mistake avoid the exercise of power to call for the records of the subordinate officer whose order projects an illegality or an irregularity. There is nothing wrong in such circumstances for an aggrieved assessee request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andamus by this Court. Such being the scope, extent and width of the power of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32, it is incorrect to state that the power can be exercised only by the authority vested with that power. Any party aggrieved could move the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the suo motu power of revision. If the Deputy Commissioner fails to exercise his jurisdiction under section 32, any person aggrieved could move the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the suo motu power of revision. There is nothing in law preventing an assessee from drawing the attention of the Deputy Commissioner to any defect present in the order of the authorities specified under section 32 of the Act. When the suo motu power of revision by the Board under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation was not an appeal, and the jurisdiction of the Board to exercise the powers of revision under section 34(2)(b) cannot be held to be taken away by the assessee filing an ineffective appeal. This decision of the Madras High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue v. Raj Brothers Agencies[1973] 31 S.T.C. 434 (S.C.)., on the principle of stare decisis. The above decision of the Supreme Court will apply to section 32(2)(b) in view of the similarity of the language employed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, an appeal contemplated under section 32(2)(b) must also be an effective appeal and not one which was rejected or refused to be entertained on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se his powers of revision under section 32 solely on the ground that the assessee had not been diligent in preferring an appeal. Setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, this Court pointed out: "The Deputy Commissioner refused to exercise jurisdiction solely on the ground that the assessee had not been diligent in preferring an appeal. In our opinion, that ground is totally irrelevant. If the assessee had preferred an appeal, there will be no occasion for the assessee invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act, because the Deputy Commissioner can exercise his power of revision only so long as the original order had not been made the subject-matter of appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
