9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the appellate authority for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1980-81. In respect of the other assessment years, namely, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the appeals preferred by the petitioners before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, were allowed in Tribunal Appeal Nos. 1763, 1764 and 1765 of 1981 on August 6, 1982, holding that the transaction effected by the writ petitioners did not represent sales and hence the petitioners were not liable to sales tax. The petitioners alleged that the petitioners filed appeals for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1980-81 for the reason that the petitioners believed that the principles stated by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal would be applicable and followed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the power vested in him under section 32(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", to consider and dispose of the revision petitions on merits, filed on September 29, 1982, by the writ petitioner. 2.. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petitioners filed revision petitions before the second respondent herein on September 29, 1982, even before the amendment was effected, in respect of section 32 of the Act. In view of the fact that the writ petitioners have filed revision petitions even before the amendment of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act under section 32, the revisional authority should have disposed of the revision petitions on merits. The rejection of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be declined even on the ground that subsequent amendment takes away the powers of the revisional authority. Admittedly, at the time when the revision petitions were filed by the writ petitioners the second respondent was vested with the power so to say suo motu power to revise the orders of this Court (sic) and as such the second respondent ought to have entertained the revision petitions filed by the writ petitioners before the amendment and having allowed the writ petitioners to file revision petitions before the amendment, there is no justifiable reason to reject the entertainment of the said revision petitions by reason of the fact that subsequent amendment came into effect after the revision petitions were filed by which the powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
