9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Cases Nos. 290 and 291 of 1979-80. This application was filed in the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and numbered as C.O. No. 74(W) of 1984. It was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal in accordance with section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and then numbered here as RN-197(T) of 1990. 2.. Facts leading to this application are simple and raise no controversy. The first respondent is a registered dealer under the aforesaid 1941 Act. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of furniture. It failed to file returns for four quarters ending December 31, 1969. An order of assessment for the said period was made on April 4, 1973, according to which a sum of Rs. 1,55,785.17 was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present writ application. 3.. The applicants' case is that the Assistant Commissioner's order could not be treated as an order from which a revision was competent before the Tribunal below under section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act and that the observations made therein relating to the legality and propriety of the assessment order were merely incidental and expression of a prima facie opinion. The assessee-company, however, defends the view taken by the Tribunal below. The revisions before the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal have remained pending in terms of the interim order made by the High Court on January 11, 1984. 4.. The West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal entertained the impugned revisions in exercise of the powers conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a mere order refusing to exercise or invoke the suo motu power of revision is not a revisional order, and consequently no revision would lie therefrom to the Tribunal below under section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act. The ratio of the above decisions is really so. Mr. Sen, appearing for the first respondent, however, relied on the decision of D. Pal, J., in the case of Paper Products Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [1973] 32 STC 208 (Cal) wherein it was held that an assessee was not barred from drawing the attention of the revising authority through an application to the defects in an impugned order for exercise of the suo motu power of revision and that the High Court would not interfere with an order which was passed on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the above cases are found to be quite consistent with the view taken by us. 6.. The impugned order dated August 9, 1979, of the Assistant Commissioner is said to consist of two parts, one part comprising the refusal to invoke the power of suo motu revision and another part comprising the following: "Incidentally, though not relevant in this connection with the disposal of the instant case, it may be stated that I have gone through the relevant order of assessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Prima facie, I do not find any apparent error concerning the legality and propriety of the said order requiring the exercise of my suo motu revisional power as invested by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the said Act." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
