9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 6 of 1957), for short "the Act". The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer carrying on business in groundnut oil seeds and cotton seeds. The appeals relate to "cotton lint". The respondent was assessed under section 5(1) for the assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the last of which was on November 29, 1975, as "cotton" unclassified general goods at 3 per cent. In similar circumstances, when the other assessees carried the matter in revision to the High Court in Alimchand Topandas Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 37 STC 603 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that cotton lint comes under "cotton waste", in entry 69 of the First Schedule and becomes exigible to tax at 1 per cent at the relevant time. Relying u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the words "for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding" by Act 18 of 1985, with effect from July 1, 1985. [and if such order or proceeding recorded is (prejudicial to the interests of revenue), may make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding] and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit." Sub-section (2) of section 20 gives power similar to that in sub-section (1), to the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer in the case of orders passed or proceedings recorded by the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a further revision under section 23 to the High Court under the Act. Thus, the Act has given right and remedy of appeal or a revision to the dealer, wherever it was so intended. As seen, section 20 is a suo motu revisional power exclusively given to the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Commercial Tax Officer, as the case may be, to revise the orders or the proceedings of the officers subordinate to the respective officers. Whether suo motu power under section 20 of the Act could have been invoked by an assessee is the question. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust [1948] 16 ITR 214; AIR 1948 PC 102 had considered similar question. It was a case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the first two questions. It assumes that section 33 creates a right in the assessee. In their Lordships' opinion it creates no such right. On behalf of the respondent the well-known principle which was discussed in [1880] 5 AC 214 (Julius v. Bishop of Oxford) was invoked and it was urged that the section which opens with the words, 'The Commissioner may of his own motion' imposed upon him a duty which he was bound to perform upon the application of an assessee. It is possible that there might be a context in which words so inapt for that purpose would create a duty. But in the present case there is no such context. On the contrary, section 33 follows upon a number of sections which determine the rights of the assessee and is itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental matter of which the assessee knows nothing. If, on the other hand, the Commissioner acts at the invitation of the assessee and again does nothing to worsen his position, there is no justification for giving him a new right of appeal. He has a specific right of appeal against the assessment or order of the subordinate officer, which is subject to its own time-limit. That he cannot enlarge by taking a course which is on his part purely voluntary. This view of the section is confirmed by the exception." The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had occasion to consider the scope of section 20 of the Act in two of its judgments. In Kalluri Bheemalingam In re: [1967] 19 STC 116, the assessee had sought to file an appeal to the High Court under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . v. Lalitha Oil Mills [1978] 42 STC 169. In that case following the decision of this Court in Sri Venkateswara Rice, Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 599 the Commissioner exercising suo motu power under section 20(1) had revised the assessment made in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. It was not a case where the Commissioner had exercised the power at the instance of an assessee. The Tribunal had wrongly held that the Commissioner could exercise the revisional power at the instance of the assessee under section 20(1) and (2) of the Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the High Court has committed an error in rejecting the revision by the State. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
