TMI Blog1952 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Officer had not examined the books properly and (2) that he had reduced the figures of gross turnover considerably as compared with the figures of gross turnover of Rs. 6,00,000, 8,00,000, 10,00,000 and 6,00,000 for the quarters ending 31-12-44, 31-3-45, 30-6-45 and 30-9-45, respectively, of the previous years. The learned Commissioner after considering the matter on its merits as also the admissibility of the petition of revision under Sec- tion 24(4) of the Act of 1947 came to the conclusion that the assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer revealed unsatisfactory state of affairs and that the gross turnover arrived at were based on surmises. He accordingly set aside the orders and remanded the cases for fresh assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes himself, by his order dated the 11th September, 1948, Exhibit C. Being dissatisfied with the above order the assessee filed six petitions of revision (Exhibits D, D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5) before the Board of Revenue. The Board after hearing the parties by its order dated 15th May, 1949, (Ex. E) rejected the petition as in its opinion there was nothing wrong in the order of remand by the Commissioner of Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1944. Sections 24(1), 24(2) and 24(3) of 1947 Act deal with appeals and there is no provision for appeal by Province of Bihar. The Board agrees with the Commissioner that the provision under Section 24(4), viz., the Commissioner may, upon application or of his own motion, revise any order passed under this Act or rules thereunder by a person appointed under Section 3 to assist him, gives the requisite power to the Commis- sioner to revise the order of assessment as in the present case. Regarding the point of limitation I am in full agreement with the finding on this point of my predecessor, Mr. N. Baksi, that if satis- factory explanation is given for delay, it is open to the Court to admit a petition even beyond the period of limitation. Here in the present case it must in the absence of any specific finding be taken that the learned Commissioner was satisfied about the reasons for not filing the petition in time. Another point raised is whether the Commis- sioner was within jurisdiction to remand the case for enquiry and fresh assessment by any person other than himself. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee emphasised this point by relyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment himself on the materials already on the record. (1) (1928) I.L.R. 6 Rang. 175. 5.. Whether in view of the proviso to Section 10, directing "that no order assessing the amount of tax due from a dealer in respect of any period shall be passed later than 24 months from the expiry of such period", the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, is compe- tent to pass fresh order of assessment for the quarters ending with 31-12-45, 31-3-46, 30-6-46, 30-9-46 31-12-46, and 31-3-47, as has been ordered by the Board of Revenue. The other points raised in the petitions for reference to the Honourable High Court were not considered necessary, in view of the reference made on the above five points. S.N. Dutta and Bomdabasni Pd., for the assessee. Government Advocate and R. Prasad, for the State. JUDGMENT RAMASWAMI, J.-This reference is made by the Board of Revenue under Section 21(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The petitioner Doma Sao Kishun Lal was assessed to sales tax for six quarters, that is, quarters ending 31st December, 1945, 31st March, 1946, 30th June, 1946, 30th September, 1946, 31st December, 1946, and 31st March, 1947. The assessment order was made on 18th Decem- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such repeal and proceedings pending on the said date, as also all proceedings initiated after the commencement of this Act but relating to any such liability as aforesaid shall be con- tinued and disposed of or initiated and disposed of, as the case may be, as if the Act of 1947 had not been passed. It is manifest therefore that Section 21 of the Act of 1944 applies to this case and that the petitioner was bound to make an application to the Board of Revenue within 60 days from the passing of the order. On behalf of the assessee Mr. Dutta stressed the argument that though the Board of Revenue had passed order on 15th May, 1949, the assessee had no information till the end of the month. As soon as he came to know about the order the assessee filed an application for copy on 2nd June, 1949, and copy was supplied only on 18th June, 1949. It was maintained that the time for obtaining copy should be excluded from the period of limitation. It is not possible to accept this argument. There is no provision in the Sales Tax Act for exclud- ing the time requisite for obtaining copies from the period prescribed. But Section 67A of the Income-tax Act states that in computing period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence within the time prescribed is fatal to the validity of the reference. It is obvious that in dealing with a reference under Section 21 the High Court does not act in exercise either of its original or appellate jurisdiction. But the High Court acquires special jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the express provision of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. Now the principle is that when a statute confers special jurisdiction upon a Tribunal the conditions and qualifications annexed to the grant must be strictly complied with. It would not be competent to a Tribunal to dispense with what the legislature had made the indispensable foundation for its jurisdiction. It follows that in the present case, the High Court cannot acquire special jurisdiction to deal with the reference unless the preliminary conditions are strictly complied with, I am of opinion that the preliminary conditions imposed by Section 21 of the Act are (1) (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 100. mandatory and the reference made by the Board of Revenue in this case is without jurisdiction. This view finds support from Trustees Corporation (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(1), in which Lord Blanesburgh said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
