1966 (1) TMI 74 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeal Upheld Despite Delay: Board's Discretion and Power of Revision Clarified

The judgment upheld the validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order striking off the appeal for non-compliance with the section 24(1) proviso. It ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of section 24(1) and 24(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 regarding the deposit of required tax amount for appeal.2. Validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order striking off the appeal for non-compliance with section 24(1) proviso.3. Legality of the Board of Revenue's order restoring the appeal and directing it to be heard on merits.Analysis:Issue 1:The judgment discusses the provisions of section 24(1) and 24(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, regarding the deposit of the required tax amount for appeal. It clarifies that the appellate authority has discretion to entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period if satisfied with the cause for delay. The judgment emphasizes that if an appeal is filed within the period but the tax is paid later within the limitation period, it does not affect the appeal's validity. The discretion to grant time for tax payment lies with the appellate authority, and refusal to grant time does not invalidate the appeal if the tax is not paid within the prescribed period.Issue 2:Regarding the validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order striking off the appeal for non-compliance with the section 24(1) proviso, the judgment affirms the validity of the order. It states that while the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to strike off the appeal, the order was subject to revision by higher authorities. The judgment explains that the Assistant Commissioner's decision was within his jurisdiction, and the order was consistent with the law.Issue 3:The judgment examines the legality of the Board of Revenue's order restoring the appeal and directing it to be heard on merits. It notes that the Board's power of revision is broad and not limited by conditions. The Board rescinded the Deputy Commissioner's decision and opined that the Assistant Commissioner should have entertained the appeal. The judgment concludes that the Board was within its power to revise the order and that its decision was valid under the law.In conclusion, the judgment answers all three questions posed in the reference, affirming the validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order, the legality of the Board of Revenue's decision, and the discretion of the appellate authority in granting time for tax payment.