9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 20th of May, 1990. Dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 31st of July, 1990, which was disposed of on 8th of October, 1993. In the meantime, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) summoned the records of the assessment proceedings and the appellate order on 26th of July, 1990 and decided to issue a notice to the petitioner on 8th of January, 1991 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment as concluded by the assessing authority and altered in part by the appellate authority should not be set aside the same being in his opinion erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The petitioner is aggrieved of the said notice and has call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than four years have expired after passing of the order sought to be revised. 4.. A plain reading of the above provision would show that the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner is debarred from exercising the suo motu revisional powers available under section 22-A, in three distinct situations covered by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (3) (supra). In so far as subclause (a) of section 22-A(3) is concerned, it is obvious that the same operates as a temporary bar against the exercise of revisional powers limited in point of time till the period prescribed for filing an appeal expires. The bar under subsection (3)(a) would disappear no sooner the period of limitation is over. In so far as the bar that is created by section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see-appellant. The Tribunal thus has the authority to look into the validity of the order in its totality and grant relief to either one of the two parties before it subject of course to the procedural formalities and the safeguards being followed in the manner prescribed. That being so, the entire order passed by the appellate authority shall be deemed to be open for scrutiny and examination before the Tribunal making it inconsequential whether or not the order was one, which was totally against the assessee or partly in favour and partly against it. I am supported in the view taken by me by a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Jeevanlal Ltd. [1996] 103 STC 99, where the Supreme Court was dealing with an identica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34(2)(b) would not get attracted. But in latter two cases such order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can certainly be made a subject-matter of grievance by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal or even before the High Court in revision. So far as second type of order is concerned, as it is wholly against the assessee, there will be no occasion for the Board to exercise its suo motu revisional powers against such an order, especially when the assessee prefers to challenge it in appeal before the Tribunal. But a possibility of Board and Tribunal being simultaneously approached by the Revenue and the assessee would arise if at all the order of the appellate authority is partly in favour of and partly against the assessee. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
