TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside tax deposit requirement in revision petitions under Punjab GST Act, emphasizes amended section 21(3A)</h1> <h3>JN. Sharma and Sons Versus The Assessing Authority, Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon and Others</h3> JN. Sharma and Sons Versus The Assessing Authority, Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon and Others - [1967] 20 STC 22 (P&H) Issues:Jurisdiction of revisional authority to insist on deposit of tax assessed before entertaining revision petition under Punjab General Sales Tax Act.Analysis:The petitioner-firm challenged a demand created by the Assessing Authority under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The revisional authority directed the petitioner-firm to deposit the amount of the demand before entertaining the revision petition. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing that it was made under rules 61-A and 62 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, which were held to be ultra vires section 21 of the Act in a previous judgment. The revisional authority's power to insist on deposit was questioned as it was not in line with the amended section 21(3A) of the Act, which granted discretion to the Commissioner to direct deposit. The Court held that the impugned order was made under the rules that were already struck down, and therefore, set aside the order. The revising authority was directed to exercise discretion under the amended section 21(3A) regarding the deposit requirement.The Court referred to a previous judgment where rules 61-A and 62 were held to be repugnant to section 21 of the Act, which grants revisional power to the Commissioner. The addition of sub-section (3A) to section 21 by an amending act authorized the Commissioner to direct deposit before deciding an application. However, the Court noted that no new rules were framed within the scope of this amendment. The Court highlighted the difference between the mandatory requirement of deposit under section 20(1) for appeals and the discretionary power granted to the revisional authority under section 21(3A). Rule 61-A was deemed ultra vires even the amended Act, as it imposed a stricter requirement than permitted by section 21(3A). The Court emphasized that the impugned order was made under the old rule, lacking the discretion now provided by the amended section 21(3A), leading to setting aside of the order.The Court concluded by allowing the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order that directed deposit before entertaining the revision petition. The revising authority was directed to exercise discretion under the amended section 21(3A) regarding the requirement of deposit. No costs were awarded in the matter.In summary, the judgment dealt with the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to insist on the deposit of tax assessed before entertaining a revision petition under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The Court held that the impugned order was made under rules that were already struck down and set it aside, directing the revising authority to exercise discretion under the amended section 21(3A) regarding the deposit requirement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
