9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the bottles used as containers of beer had been received back and the amount shown as deposits had been returned, the turnover of Rs. 1,11,830 representing the value of the bottles had been assessed at a lower rate of 6 per cent as against 10 per cent applicable to beer. On appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) accepted the contention of the assessee that the amount shown as deposit and bottles were liable to be returned and could not, therefore, form part of the sale price. In the second case-M/s. Poorna Wines-the assessment proceeded on the basis that the value of the bottles formed part of the price of the beer itself and the entire turnover was taxed at 10 per cent. On appeal, the Deputy Commis- sioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Commercial Taxes (Legal) and, therefore, only the Joint Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and not the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. We find that rule 44-A originally contained the words "Joint Commissioners" and "Deputy Commissioners" as subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but by G.O. Ms. No. 1445, Revenue dated November 5, 1986, the words "Deputy Commissioner" were substituted by the words "Deputy Commissioners including Appellate Deputy Commissioners", a phrase which appears also in item No. 2 under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner (Legal). Our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Poonam Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 92 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment, we find that it included "Deputy Commissioner", which term should normally include also a Deputy Commissioner having appellate powers. A Deputy Commissioner, who is a subordinate of a Joint Commissioner, is certainly a subordinate of the Commissioner, and it cannot be said that the Commissioner, who can interfere with the order of the Joint Commissioner, cannot interfere with the order of his subordinate, viz., the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). From whatever point of view we look at this rule, read with the section, we have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner had ample powers to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Lastly, it was argued that since the Supreme Court had laid down certain tests ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
