9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. 2. The petitioner, by a letter dated 10.04.2014, requested 'C' Forms for the period prior to October 2012, for which, the petitioner furnished the details, which were verified and the petitioner was informed that the items manufactured by them namely, Food items and Fried Chicken, do not come under the purview of Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and are not eligible to be purchased against Form-C, hence, the request of the dealer/petitioner was rejected, as against which, the dealer filed a representation before the Joint Commissioner, on 24.04.2014 and the Joint Commissioner/second respondent, instead of considering the application by himself, once again forwarded the petitioner& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention were not considered and his representation was merely forwarded for sending reply. 4. It is submitted that since already the first respondent had taken a decision earlier on 10.04.2014, the second respondent ought not to have forwarded the petitioner's representation once again to the first respondent. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur vs. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., wherein in para 27, the Honourable Supreme Court has quoted with the approval decision of the Bombay High Court in Bown Press v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 39 STC 367 (Bom), wherein, it was held that when an application by a registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in decision cited supra that all these matters are quasi judicial and if an officer has rendered incorrect findings, then the same could be revised by the appropriate authority. The second respondent, having sufficient jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the first respondent, ought not to have simply forwarded the matter to the first respondent, who has already rejected the petitioner's request. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the manner in which the application has been dealt with, is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
