TMI Blog1966 (10) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND BHARGAVA V. JJ. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate (A.V. Rangam with him), for the appellant. A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate (D.N. Gupta with him), for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, J. -This appeal is brought by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated the 13th September, 1961, in T.C. 162 of 1958. The Madurai Mills Co., Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondent) is a dealer in yarn, purchasing raw material like cotton, staple-fibre etc., manufacturing them into yarn and selling the yarn. In the assessment year 1950-51, the respondent showed a return of Rs. 15,27,61,883-8-4 befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Commercial Tax Officer. By his order, dated the 21st August, 1954, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissed the revision petition holding that the respondent was not entitled to raise the contention for the first time and that even otherwise the Madras General Sales Tax (Definition of Turnover and Validation of Assessments) Act, 1954, permitted the inclusion of tax in the taxable turnover. On the 4th August, 1958, the Board of Revenue issued a notice to the respondent stating that it proposed to revise the assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, by including in the net turnover the sum of Rs. 7,74,62,706-1-6 as that amount was wrongly excluded by the assessing authority. The respondent objected to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer may- (i) suo motu, or (ii) in cases in which an appeal does not lie to him under section 11, on application, call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding, and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. (2) The Deputy Commissioner may- (i) suo motu, or (ii) in respect of any order passed or proceeding recorded by the Commercial Tax Officer under sub-section (1) or any other provision of this Act and against which no appeal has been preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on which the order was communicated to the assessee." It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the order revised by the Board of Revenue was the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated the 21st August, 1954, and not the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and therefore the power of revision by the Board of Revenue was not exercised beyond the period of limitation provided by section 12(4)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. The only subject-matter of the revision proceedings before the Board of Revenue was the revised assessment order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, dated the 28th November, 1952. The objection taken by the Board of Revenue was wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced upon the observation of Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was, in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. [1958] 34 I.T.R. 130 at 136. But the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be said that wherever there are two orders, one by the inferior tribunal and the other by a superior tribunal, passed in an appeal or revision, there is a fusion or merger of two orders irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate or revisional order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute. In our opinion, the application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental tribunal on the 20th April, 1948, and against which the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the 7th May, 1949, and the revisional application was rejected on the 22nd April, 1950. In the circum- stances of the present case, it cannot be said that there was a merger of the order of assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated the 28th November, 1952, with the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated the 21st August, 1954, because the question of exemption oil the value of yarn purchased from outside the State of Madras was not the subject- matter of revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The only point that was urged before the Deputy Commissioner was that the sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
