TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the order of the Madras High Court in two writ petitions in which mandamus was issued to the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the revision petitions filed by the assessee-respondent under section 34(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959) (hereinafter called the "Act"). The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The respondent- assessee was assessed to sales tax during the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. Aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authorities, he went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed his appeals. Thereafter, he filed second appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. Those appeals were dismissed as ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present some difficulty. But in view of the circumstances, which we shall presently set out, we will not be justified in examining the correctness of the conclusion reached by the High Court. As far back as 1963 the scope of section 34 came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Erode Yarn Stores v. State of Madras [1963] 14 S.T.C. 724. Therein, the assessee contended that once an appeal is filed before a Tribunal, the Board is precluded from invoking its power under section 34. The State of Madras controverted that position. Therein the State contended that before the jurisdiction of the Board to exercise its power under section 34 can be held to be taken away, the appeal filed before the Tribunal must have been an effecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yarn Stores' case[1963] 14 S.T.C. 724., was correctly decided. That decision was rendered in respect of a provision in a State Act. It was rendered as far back as 1963. In that case the High Court accepted the contention of the State. That decision has stood the field till now. It must have governed several cases, decided thereafter. After that decision was rendered, the Act had been subjected to several amendments. The Legislature has not thought it fit to amend section 34. To put it differently the State had prayed for and obtained a particular interpretation of section 34. It has accepted that interpretation to be correct ever since 1963. Under these circumstances, it is not proper for this court to upset that decision at this late stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
