TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cancelled rebate which was also attacked as passed without jurisdiction, and for costs. Under rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, which applies to this case, every person claiming a rebate under section 7 shall submit to the assessing authority an application in Form 8 within three months of the delivery of the articles outside the Province, and rule 10 says that on receipt of the application the assessing authority shall, after satisfying himself that the application is in order, and that the rebate is admissible, send to the applicant a refund order for the amount of the rebate due, if the tax has already been paid, or if the assessment had been provisionally made under rule 7 or 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, adjust the amount at the time of the final assessment under rule 11. The respondent in this case submitted an application under rule 9 in time only for the months of February and March, 1949. But it claimed a rebate on a turnover of more than 24 lakhs for the entire year 1948-49. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer pointed to it that there was no application in Form 8 asking for rebate for the other ten months. Thereupo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial Tax Officer did not accept as genuine the entries in the despatch register produced by the respondent-company for his inspection to prove that the original Form 8 applications were sent to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in time, as there were many interlineations, and there were no acknowledgement of any of the Form 8 applications of rebate, or any proof that anything was spent on postage for sending the applications for rebate. So, on 30th March, 1951, under Ex. A-8, he set aside the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's order dated 13th December, 1949, allowing a rebate under section 7 on a turnover of Rs. 24,60,346-4-3, and allowed rebate only on a turnover of Rs. 2,58,143-10-0 and ordered the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to issue a revised "B" notice immediately to the respondent. The succeeding Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mr. Rajagopala Aiyangar, acted with alacrity, and issued a notice on 31st March, 1951, itself to the respondent demanding the excess tax of Rs. 17,204-11-3 on the turnover disallowed for rebate. The respondent-company felt aggrieved. It filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. That revision was dismissed by him on 31st Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12 (2) would entitle him to call for and examine the records of any order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in order to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings, and to pass suitable orders in the matter if the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's orders were found to be not legal, proper or regular. Mr. Padmanabhan contested this hotly. According to him, a Commercial Tax Officer could only interfere with the orders passed by a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer if they were patently illegal or outside his jurisdiction, or there was impropriety in the sense of misconduct like bribery or inducement by immorality being the cause for the order, and irregularity in the sense that the procedure was not followed and not even copies of Form 8 applications were given. We are unable to agree. It will be meaningless, in our opinion, to have a hierarchy of officers inspecting the subordinate offices and examining the records and orders passed by the subordinate officers in money matters involving public revenue if these superior officers are not allowed to examine the correctness of those orders, which correctness will certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Board of Revenue, against the respondent's contention that it had sent the original Form 8 applications in time, and that they had been mislaid by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Mr. Padmanabhan did not also want to canvass the merits. He only urged that when the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue suspected the despatch registers to contain forged interpolations regarding these entries, full proof was required in such quasi-criminal findings. But that will only apply to a prosecution for forgery, and not to disbelief of the story. We are not now concerned with the merits of the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Then Mr. Padmanabhan contended that the powers given to the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue under section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act were confined only to errors patent on the face of the records, and would not extend to probing further into the records like calling for despatch registers and other evidence. This contention must be rejected forthwith, in view of the fact that section 12(2) does not lay down any such limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
