9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessments) to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law and in the light of the notice. This notice dated 8th September, 1987, marked as annexure-A in the writ petition. This notice is challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. The argument of Sri B.V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Joint Commissioner was vested with powers of revision under section 22-A with effect from 1st April, 1983 and that therefore he has no jurisdiction to interfere with any orders made prior to the said date. The assessment relates to the year 1981-82 and the return was filed during the year 1982. Therefore, the authority to revise the assessment, in respect of the assessment for the year 1981-82, is the Commissioner only and not the Joint Commissioner, is the argument of Sri Katageri and that he is not competent to exercise revisional power in respect of any matter relating to the period prior to 1st April, 1983. The learned counsel's argument is that the career of the case should be governed, until it is finally determined under the Act, by the law that was in force on the date of the return and the return having been filed in this case during the year 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 and 227 of the Constitution. On the dismissal of the petition by the High Court, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The point that was considered by the Supreme Court in the said appeal related to the right of appeal of the assessee, whether it should be governed by the law that would be applicable to the date on which the assessment was made or the amended law which came into force after the date of assessment. The amendment imposed the restriction on the assessee to deposit the disputed tax along with the appeal. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the right of appeal of the assessee was a substantive right and that therefore the provision under which he can file an appeal would be the unamended law in that case. Upholding this contention, the Supreme Court held that the appellant's appeal could not have been rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by proof of payment of the assessed tax and further held that the unamended law would be applicable to the assessee's case. The contention, urged on behalf of the State of M.P. that the right of appeal was a matter of procedure, was rejected. The Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment summed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed below (see at page 372): "As regards the general principles applicable to the case there was no controversy. On the one hand, it was not disputed that if the matter in question be a matter of procedure only, the petition is well-founded. On the other hand, if it be more than a matter of procedure, if it touches a right in existence at the passing of the Act, it was conceded that, in accordance with a long line of authorities extending from the time of Lord Coke to the present day, the appellants would be entitled to succeed. The Judiciary Act is not retrospective by express enactment or by necessary intendment. And therefore the only question is, Was the appeal to His Majesty in Council a right vested in the appellants at the date of the passing of the Act, or was it a mere matter of procedure? It seems to their Lordships that the question does not admit of doubt. To deprive a suitor in a pending action of an appeal to a superior tribunal which belonged to him as of right is a very different thing from regulating procedure. In principle, their Lordships see no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The other decision relied upon by the Government Pleader is of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shyam Lal Dina Nath [1974] 34 STC 263. Their Lordships were dealing with the power of revising authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. This decision has no direct relevance with the present case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner finds an answer in. the very same decisions relied upon by him, namely, Hoosein Kasam Dada's case [1953] 4 STC 114 (SC); AIR 1953 SC 221 and Garikapati Veeraya's case AIR 1957 SC 540. The ratio of the two decisions do not support the contention of the petitioner and the observations of the Supreme Court were made with reference to the right of appeal, and it was held that it is not a mere matter of procedure but it is a substantive right. Any subsequent amendment interfering with the said right of appeal, as held by the Supreme Court, impairs the vested right which was governed by the law on the date of the assessment order, in Hoosein Kasam Dada's case [1953] 4 STC 114; AIR 1953 SC 221 and on the date of institution of the suit, in Garikapati Veeraya's case AIR 1957 SC 540. Therefore, keeping in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
