1976 (2) TMI 178 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment for the assessment year 1968-69.
2. Invocation of jurisdiction under sections 32 and 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 34 of the Act.
4. Maintainability of the tax appeal under section 37 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought a revision of the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, specifically requesting the deletion of a turnover amounting to Rs. 1,90,112. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer had assessed the petitioners on a total and taxable turnover, which included the disputed amount. Despite not appealing against the assessment initially, the petitioners later approached the assessing authority seeking a revision. Subsequently, they appealed to higher authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, challenging the assessment.

2. The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction under sections 32 and 33 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner, in his order, emphasized that the petitioners had failed to claim deduction during the final assessment and did not file an appeal, making it impermissible for them to seek rectification under section 55 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner also noted that the petitioners were not entitled to the special powers under section 32 as they did not avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioners then approached the Board of Revenue under section 34, which, while declining to revise the assessment orders, only reduced the rate of tax.

3. The Board of Revenue's jurisdiction under section 34 of the Act was invoked by the petitioners. The Board, in its decision, did not interfere with the original assessment but provided relief by reducing the tax rate. The Board's decision was challenged through a tax appeal under section 37 of the Act.

4. The High Court opined that the proceedings undertaken by the petitioners were misconceived. The Court differentiated between the exercise of powers by the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 and the exercise of powers under section 33 of the Act. It clarified that unless an order is made under section 32(1) or 34(1) of the Act, a revision to the Board of Revenue is not competent. As the Board of Revenue did not pass a positive order under section 34(1) but only declined to interfere with the assessment, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and thus dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the Board of Revenue's decision did not constitute an order under section 34(1) of the Act, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.