9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng out all the facts. But, the second respondent, instead of considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, forwarded the same to the first respondent, which should not have been done. It is clearly an abdication of power vested with the statutory authority 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent along with his letter dated 30.04.2014 with a direction to consider the petitioner's contention. The first respondent once again by impugned proceedings dated 07.05.2014, has rejected the petitioner's contention, not fully, but partially. But, on perusal of the impugned order, in the last paragraph of the impugned order, it is not very clear as to whether the C Forms will be issued for all items except item Nos.1, 12 and 13 or whether C Forms will be issued for item Nos.1, 12 and 13 and rejected for all other items. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Sales Tax Act, 1959, is made, the Sales Tax Officer has to determine whether the dealer is entitled to get the certificate of recognition. Further, it is pointed out that it is a quasi-judicial enquiry and if the decision of the Officer is incorrect, it can be revised by the appropriate officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the first respondent is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above submissions. 6. The issue is as to whether the goods purchased by the petitioner for carrying on its business activities, are eligible for issuance of C Forms and whether it has to be appreciated by the authority concerned by e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
