9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al turnover at Rs. 1,95,512.92 and Rs. 1,72,932.74 respectively by his assessment order dated 31st March, 1975. The assessing authority levied the tax at 3½ per cent for the period 1st April, 1973 to 7th August, 1973, during which the difference of tax between 15 per cent and 3½ 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier revision. petition having been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, the same cannot 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 beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee having invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue the superior 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 subordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified in interfering with the said order. In that case, in exercise of the suo 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 cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
