Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1954 (8) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assess- ment) Rules. These rules provided for a provisional assessment month by month on the basis of the returns submitted by the assessee [see rules 15(2) and 15(3)] or for provisional assessment on the best judgment basis [see rule 15(4)]. The rules also provided for a final assessment after the close of the year [see rules 13(5) and (6)]. The petitioners submitted their returns month by month for the first nine months of 1950-51, but the assessing authority, instead of dealing with the return of each month, made a consolidated provisional assessment for nine months. The assessees claimed relief under rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assess- ment Rules, but that claim was negatived by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the scope of rule 18(2) in its order in T.R.Cs. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1954.* It is the correctness of the order in T.R.Cs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953 that the petitioners seek to challenge by appeal to the Supreme Court. T.R.C. No. 52 of 1953 satisfies the pecuniary test of Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The tax liability itself in that case, provisional as well as the anticipated final assessment, is well over Rs. 20,000. The tax liability is admittedly less than Rs. 20,000 in T.R.C. No. 51 of 1953, but the petitioner seeks to have that consolidated with T.R.C. No. 52 of 1953 for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the respondent, the State of Madras, the learned Government Pleader contended that the requirements of A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cs. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1954*. Rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules came up for interpretation for the first time before this Court in T.R.Cs. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1954*, and a few days later the principle of that decision was applied in T.R.Cs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953. So far there has been no authoritative pronounce- ment by the Supreme Court on the scope of rule 18(2). In Subba Rao v. Veeraraju(2), the learned Chief justice observed: "When a point of law is practically covered by a decision of the highest court, say like the Privy Council or the Supreme Court, then it would not be a substantial question." Since there has been no such decision, and since there is no scope for excluding the normal test, that the interpretation of st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - gated and negatived in the course of proceedings of provisional assess- ment under rule 15 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. Sub-rules (5) and (6) of rule 15 provided for the final assessment in the case of each dealer-assessee, even the dealer who has been provisionally assessed under the earlier sub-rules of rule 15. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the "civil proceeding" referred to in Article 133(1) of the Constitution is, in this case, the assessment proceedings, and that therefore the orders in relation to provisional assessment under rule 15 are only in the nature of interlocutory orders in the civil proceedings, that is, the assessment proceedings, is, in our opinion, well- founded. The learned Government .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issue is by itself not material. If the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order will undoubtedly be a final one, but if the suit is still left alive and has got to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could attach to the order". These principles were followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Raghavacharyulu v. Venkata Ramanujacharyulu(4). (1) [1950] S.C.J. 139. (3) (1933) 60 I.A. 76. (2) [1947] F.L.J. 110. (4) (1954) 1 M.L.J. 198. No doubt the claim of the petitioners to the deduction under rule 18(2) was a vital issue in the proceedings before the appellate autho- rities and before this Court. In fact it was the only issue decided by this Court. Nonetheless, the determination of that issue did not put an end to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates