Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1984 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (5) TMI 235 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Board of Revenue under section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, operates as res judicata. 2. Whether the revision petition filed by the assessing authority was maintainable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the order of the Board of Revenue under section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, operates as res judicata: The Board of Revenue had sent a question for the opinion of the High Court under section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, regarding whether an order revising a part of the impugned order operates as res judicata in respect of all matters covered by the impugned order. The High Court clarified that the proper question should be whether the revision petition filed by the assessing authority was maintainable, given that the order of the Deputy Commissioner had become part of the Board's order and no finding had been given by the Board on the merits of the revision. The Court analyzed section 14 of the Act, which provides for filing revisions. Under sub-section (1) of section 14, the assessing authority can file a revision within three years, while under sub-section (2), a dealer can file a revision within six months. The Court emphasized that the Board, while deciding a dealer's revision, cannot pass an order prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, even if the Board believed that the penalty was wrongly set aside, it could not grant relief to the assessing authority while deciding the dealer's revision. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the penalty did not merge into the Board's order. The Court cited several case laws, including Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co., Madura Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras, and State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., to support the view that the doctrine of merger is not universally applicable and depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order and the scope of the statutory provisions. 2. Whether the revision petition filed by the assessing authority was maintainable: The Court held that the assessing authority is entitled to file a separate revision under sub-section (1) of section 14 if aggrieved by any portion of the judgment. The period for filing such a revision is three years. The Court noted that the legislature provided different periods for filing revisions, and even after a dealer's revision is decided, the assessing authority can file a revision within the three-year period. The Court referenced the Allahabad High Court's decision in Jamuna Das Ram Kishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, which held that the right to file a revision is not destroyed if one party's revision is disposed of. The Court also discussed a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur v. Mohanlal Bishambhar Dayal, which held that the assessing authority cannot revise the order of a superior authority without taking recourse to rectification proceedings. In conclusion, the High Court determined that the revision filed by the assessing authority should have been decided on merits and not dismissed on the ground that the order of the Deputy Commissioner had merged into the Board's order. The question of law framed by the Court was answered in the negative, and the reference was answered accordingly.
|