TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes, for the respondent. V. Krishnamurthy, V. Ramasubramanian and T. Harish Kumar, Advocates, for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows: The respondent- assessee was assessed to sales tax by the assessment officer. After some time, he invoked the suo motu powers of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the Act ) questioning the correctness of the assessment. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition in limine. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the said order in the High Court. The High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner should entertain the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the order had expired; (b) the order had not been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, or of a revision in the High Court; and (c) more than four years had not expired after the passing of the assessment order. 5. The above section shows that the time-limit prescribed does not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from passing an order on an application filed before him under section 32 within the period mentioned in the sub-section. Here the revision petition under section 32 was filed by the assessee within a period of four years and he passed an order on a later date. As the High Court has rightly pointed out, just because the Deputy Commissioner took time to pass the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down the same principle and nothing new was set out in the decision of this Court in K.G. Khosla s case [1966] 17 STC 473. It may be so, but that does not prevent the revisional authority when it entertained the revision petition on merits pursuant to the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the assessee to apply the law as declared by the Supreme Court. When the revisional authority dealt with the revision petition under section 32 pursuant to the order of the High Court, the law had been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.G. Khosla s case [1966] 17 STC 473 clarifying the position with regard to the question of a sale preceding an import. The Tribunal after going into the facts of the case came to the conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
