9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Commissioner. By an order dated April 7, 1975, the assessment was confirmed. Thereafter, the company moved the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal in revision in terms of the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. By an order dated January 29, 1979, the revision was dismissed for default by the learned Tribunal below. Thereafter a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution was filed before the High Court, Calcutta. It stood transferred to this Tribunal in terms of section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 read with article 323B of the Constitution. It was numbered in this Tribunal as RN-632(T) of 1989. After hearing both sides the said writ petition, being No. RN-632(T) of 1989, was disposed of by the Full Bench of this Tribunal comprising the then honourable Chairman and both of us by an order dated April 12, 1990. The order dated January 29, 1979, passed by the learned Tribunal below was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the said Tribunal with the direction to hear and dispose of the revision within a period of six months from "today", namely, from the date of the order, which was April 12, 1990. The West Bengal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the jurisdiction to hear the revision afresh was given to the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal by the order dated the April 12, 1990, of this Tribunal in RN 632(T) of 1989 and the order had clearly directed the Tribunal below to hear and dispose of the revision within a period of six months from April 12, 1990. That being so, according to learned advocates for the applicant, the Tribunal below could not exercise its jurisdiction regarding hearing and disposal of the revision after expiry of six months from April 12, 1990. There is no dispute that the period of six months expired on October 12, 1990. Accordingly, it has been argued by the learned advocates for the applicant that the judgment and order dated October 16, 1990, passed by the learned Tribunal below was without jurisdiction. Being without jurisdiction, it was further argued that it is a nullity. It was argued by Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, that although the power to hear the revision afresh was conferred by the order dated April 12, 1990, passed by this Tribunal, once the remand order was passed, the authority below was within jurisdiction to dispose it of within the dateline prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is true that the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal below to hear the said revision afresh emanated from the order of this Tribunal dated April 12, 1990, passed in RN-632(T) of 1989. But, in our view, as soon as that jurisdiction was given to the learned Tribunal below, that Tribunal was to dispose it of in accordance with law, which includes the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Now, this Tribunal had also directed in the order dated April 12, 1990, that the fresh hearing and disposal of the revision should be completed within six months from April 12, 1990. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, non-compliance of that direction by the learned Tribunal below amounted to denuding that Tribunal of the jurisdiction to rehear the revision. We have already stated that both of us were a party to the order dated April 12, 1990, in RN-632(T) of 1989. The honourable Chairman who was the other Member of the Bench which passed the said order dated April 12, 1990, has since retired. In our view, the object of giving a direction as to the time-limit of six months was to ensure an expeditious disposal of a very old matter. We have alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to decide that case. As regard the decision in [1976] 37 STC 517 (SC) (Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu) we are respectfully bound by the observations of the Supreme Court and we are also of the opinion that any limitation, whether of time or on some other point, imposed by us cannot be ignored by the authorities below. But, again if there is a wilful violation of a direction of this Tribunal, a different remedy may be contemplated but in our considered view, merely a non-adherence to the timelimit imposed by an order of this Tribunal does not necessarily take away the jurisdiction of an inferior authority. Mr. P.K. Bose, learned advocate for the applicant, referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 (SC) at page 535 and contended that the objection as to jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. He also relied on the case of Srinivasalu Brothers v. State of Karnataka [1984] 57 STC 89 at page 91 and contended that a remand order gives jurisdiction to an inferior authority and that authority should act strictly within the four corners of the remand order. Mr. M.L. Nahar, learned advocate for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order in question dated April 12, 1990, was neither couched in negative language nor accompanied by some expression of putting a complete bar on the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Tribunal below, it cannot be said to be mandatory so as to take away its jurisdiction beyond the period of six months, in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Majumdar referred also to [1962] 13 STC 472 (SC) (Central Potteries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) and [1965] 16 STC 1071 (Cal) (Madanlal Mahawar v. Commercial Tax Officer) and a decision of this Tribunal dated March 23, 1990 in the case of Sri Kishan Kumar Somani, RN-404 and 405 of 1989. He contended that by surrendering to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal below on October 16, 1990, and by not raising any objection to exercise of the jurisdiction, the applicant deprived itself of any right to contend that the learned Tribunal below had no jurisdiction in hearing the matter on October 16, 1990. We are not expressing any opinion on this point, because it is not necessary to do so; but since we have already held that in the facts and circumstances and having regard to the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
