Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue, in suo motu revision under section 34, could reopen the assessment portion granting exemption on turnover that was not the subject of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after the period of limitation had expired.
Analysis: The appellate proceedings before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were confined only to the turnover of Rs. 70,903.69 for which exemption had been refused, and did not extend to the turnover of Rs. 5,58,479 on which exemption had already been allowed by the assessing authority. The doctrine of merger was held not to apply across the board merely because an appeal had been decided; it operates only to the extent of the subject-matter actually carried in appeal. Since the disputed turnover before the appellate authority did not cover the exempted turnover, the Board of Revenue could not, under the guise of revising the appellate order, disturb the assessment beyond the period prescribed by section 34(2)(c). The cases relied upon by the revenue were distinguished on the ground that, in those matters, the appellate order covered the entire assessment.
Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to cancel the exemption already granted by the assessing authority on the turnover of Rs. 5,58,479 after the limitation period had expired.