9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is assessment order dated 31st March, 1975. The assessing authority levied the tax at 3 per cent for the period 1st April, 1973 to 7th August, 1973, during which the difference of tax between 15 per cent and 3 per cent had been waived and at 15 per cent for the period from 8th August, 1973 to 31st March, 1974. The assessee did not prefer any appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore the said assessment order had become final. However, on 4th December, 1976, the assessee filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue invoking its suo motu powers under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act and to fix the rate of tax in respect of transistor leather covers at multi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be interfered with in appeal. In that view, the Tribunal rejected the appeal by the assessee. The said order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that has been questioned in this tax revision case. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Tribunal should have disposed of the appeal on merits without rejecting the appeal on the ground that it cannot be maintained. In this case, none of the authorities have gone into the merits of the assessment. The original assessment has been allowed to become final, without any further appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a further appeal to the Tribunal. After the assessment order has become final, the assessee moved the Board of Revenue to exercise its suo motu power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perior authority, it cannot again move the Deputy Commissioner, a subordinate authority, to exercise suo motu powers on the same grounds. The view taken by the Deputy Commissioner is that when the assessee has moved a superior authority in revision and failed, it cannot move a subordinate authority for the same relief and on the same grounds. The Deputy Commissioner appears to be right. In Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] 48 STC 248 the Supreme Court has categorically ruled that when the appellate jurisdiction of a superior authority is invoked against an order and that authority is seized of the case, it is not proper for a subordinate authority to claim to exercise jurisdiction to revise that order which is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o motu power of revision under section 32 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee calling upon him to show cause why a penalty on an undisclosed turnover should not be levied against him. In response to this notice, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to levy the proposed penalty, and also claimed exemption in relation to the undisclosed turnover. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order levying a penalty as proposed. On appeal the Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court on revision, reversed the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it related to the appellant's claim on exemption. On those facts, the Supreme Court held that though suo motu po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
