TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue could refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the ground that a belated and ineffective appeal had been filed, and whether its summary rejection of the revision petition without reasons was sustainable.
Analysis: The assessment was sought to be revised after the appeal had been dismissed in limine as time-barred by one day, so the appeal was not an effective appeal for the purpose of barring revision. A summary rejection stating that there was no reason to interfere did not show application of mind to the facts or law and was therefore a non-speaking order. In such circumstances, the revisional authority was required to consider the revision petition on merits and deal with the legality of the assessment in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The Board of Revenue could not decline revision on the basis of the ineffective appeal, and its order was unsustainable for want of reasons.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal of the revision petition in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A belated, ineffective appeal does not bar revisional jurisdiction, and a summary, reasonless refusal to exercise that jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.
TaxTMI 
