TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we will refer only to the paper book in Sales Tax Reference No. 29 of 1967. The Sales Tax Officer issued notices in Form No. 34 to the applicant, calling him for verification of books. Several further opportunities were also given to the applicant to comply with the orders of the assessment officer. Discrepancies were pointed out to the applicant at some of the stages. He was called upon to make good the discrepancies, but the applicant did not avail himself of the several opportunities given to him by the department, and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer was compelled, as he has mentioned, to make assessments to the best of his judgment. Against these assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer to the best of his judgment, the applicant filed appeals, but all those appeals came to be dismissed, because the applicant failed to pay any amount of the tax as directed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the applicant filed revision applications before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The ultimate order in these revision applications came to be passed by Shri H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, but prior to Shri Munshi dealing with this matter, his predecessor-in-off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in spite of this the learned Deputy Commissioner had completely ignored this verification, and it was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had, therefore, erred in doing so. By their judgment dated 20th March, 1964, the Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that the predecessor-in-office of Mr. H.B. Munshi, who was exercising powers of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, should have decided the point as to whether the summary rejection of the appeals by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was justified, and the Tribunal also observed that that officer went out of his way and gave some relief to the dealer. The Tribunal held that the ex Parte assessment was fully justified, and it took the view that whatever evidence was relied upon by the assessee ought to be produced normally before the original authority, and the assessee could not be permitted, merely for his negligence or convenience, to produce further evidence before the appellate authority. If the assessee is in a position to produce evidence, he is in duty bound to produce it before the original authority, and if he is negligent in that respect, it is not proper and reasonable to allow the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appointed under section 3 to assist him, and, subject as aforesaid the Tribunal may, upon application, revise any order passed by the Collector: Provided that no application under this sub-section shall be entertained if it is not made within a period of four months from the date of the order: Provided further that before rejecting any application for the revision of any such order the Collector or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall record reasons for such rejection. (2) Before any order is passed under this section which is likely to affect any person adversely, such person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Where a person could have appealed under section 30, and no appeal has been filed by him, no proceedings in revision under this section shall be entertained upon the application of such person." Even a bare perusal of this section will show that the Legislature has not sought to place any restraints or limitations on the exercise of the revisional powers by the Tribunal. It has created a power in the Tribunal to exercise revisional jurisdiction by authorising it to revise any order passed by the Collector, which means, the Collector or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the applicant that once documents are admitted by the Deputy Commissioner, the Sales Tax Tribunal, in the exercise of its revisional powers, which revisional jurisdiction was attracted at the instance of the applicant-assessee, was powerless or without jurisdiction to adjudge on the propriety or correctness of the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in admitting documents or evidence at that stage. We do not see any such limitation or inhibition in the exercise of its revisional powers by the Tribunal under section 31 of the Act. It is not proper to say that, merely because the revisional jurisdiction is invoked at the instance of the assessee, the revisional authority is restricted in exercising its jurisdiction, either in dismissing the revision without interfering with the order of the subordinate authority, or in giving relief in favour of the assessee. In proper cases, orders of the subordinate authorities are open to revision, and the revisional jurisdiction is not restricted only to the two aspects contended for by the applicant. In this connection, the provision in sub-section (2) of section 31 is relevant and material to be considered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
