9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners that this question is not res integra and has already been decided by a Full Bench of this court in Indo National Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad [2004] 136 STC 586; [2001] 33 APSTJ 206. The Full Bench was interpreting section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity the Act ) and it held that: There cannot be any dispute that in the hierarchy of authorities provided for under the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is superior to the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes. Irrespective of the fact that as to whether principles of res judicata will be applicable or not, we are of the opinion that the said provision creates a bar in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 20(3) has already expired. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Investigation), New Delhi v. Pooran Mall Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390, which according to the learned counsel has held that once time is sought by a party, that party cannot take the defence of limitation. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: Even apart from the consent of the parties it was open to the court in writ petition No. 82 of 1972, to have set aside the earlier order of the Income-tax Officer and direct a fresh disposal of the matter by the Income-tax Officer on the ground which was in fact agreed to by the parties, that the aggrieved party had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alistic. It is, therefore, possible for the parties to agree to a fresh disposal by the Income-tax Officer even as the court would have ordered. It is also not a case of the parties conferring jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer by consent. It is a case where the parties agreed to a particular mode of exercise by the Income-tax Officer of a jurisdiction which he cannot be said to have lost or in respect of which he has become functus officio. Though it is true that on passing an order under section 132(5) the Income-tax Officer can be said to become functus officio it is the court's order that revives his powers and jurisdiction. Going by this judgment and also the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court, we are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
