Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (11) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orders are exhibits P1 to P3, dated 2nd August, 1983. This Court in P.K. Dewer v. State of Kerala [1974] 33 STC 73 (App.) and in subsequent cases categorically held that such materials as those printed by the petitioner, cannot be treated as "paper products", but could be taxed only as general goods. The Board of Revenue has also clarified the position in exhibit P4, dated 1st August, 1983. The petitioner filed a petition for rectification of the assessments for the three years praying for reduction of tax from that of 8 per cent single point, to the general rate. Stating that the question involves disputed questions of fact, the assessing authority negatived the prayer. The petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s follows: "35. Powers of revision of the Deputy Commissioner suo motu.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for and examine any order passed or proceedings recorded under this Act by any officer or authority subordinate to him other than an Appellate Assistant Commissioner and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order under subsection (1) if- (a) the time for appeal against the order has not expired; (b) the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal or of a revision in the High Court; or ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n admitting an application for revision, the Deputy Commissioner may call for and examine the record of the order or proceeding against which the application has been preferred and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. (4) Notwithstanding that an application has been preferred under sub-section (1), the tax, fee or other amount shall be paid in accordance with the order or proceeding against which the application has been preferred: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may, in his discretion, give such directions as he thinks fit in regard to the payment of such tax, fee or other amount, if the applicant furnishes sufficient security to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Kerala Act, an order sought to be revised need not be prejudicial to the Revenue and the fact that the section states that no order adverse to a person can be passed without giving an opportunity to him, implies that orders favourable to the assessee are also contemplated. The learned judge further took the view that section 35 of the Act is intended to set right the error or illegality or impropriety of a subordinate authority and it can be exercised for or against the assessee. On a fair interpretation of sections 35 and 36 of the Kerala Act, in the light of the various decisions mentioned above, we are of the view that the power of revision is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to remedy injustice. The power is couched in very .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was justified in quashing exhibit P8 and directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of exhibits P5 to P7 on the merits and in accordance with law. 3.. It now remains to consider the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, brought to our notice in State of West Bengal v. Paper Products Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 42. The Division Bench has not referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Brothers Agencies' case [1973] 31 STC 434, Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. case [1976] 37 STC 517 and other relevant decisions. With great respect-to the learned judges, who decided the case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the dictum laid down in the said case as laying down the correct position in law. We respectfully dissent from the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates