1974 (1) TMI 88 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal lacks authority to entertain revision against Deputy Commissioner's order under Bihar Sales Tax Act

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar Versus North Ramgarh Coal Company Private Ltd.

The High Court of Patna ruled that the Tribunal did not have the legal authority to entertain a revision filed against the Deputy Commissioner's order ... - Issues:1. Competency of the Tribunal to entertain a revision filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner.2. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the power of review and revision.In the present case, an assessment order was passed under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, and an appeal was filed by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner refused to entertain the appeal due to non-deposit of the requisite sales tax amount. Subsequently, the assessee filed a review application, which was also rejected. The Tribunal, after considering the merits, held that the appeal was fit to be entertained as the tax amount was paid. The Commissioner sought to refer a question of law to the High Court regarding the competency of the Tribunal to entertain the revision. The key issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to consider the revision filed against the Deputy Commissioner's order. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly sections 30, 31, 32, and 34A, to determine the scope of appellate and revisional powers conferred upon different authorities. It was observed that the power of review under section 32 was distinct from the appellate power under section 30. The Court concluded that when a review is dismissed, the order rejecting the review remains an order under section 32 and cannot be treated as an order under section 30. Therefore, the revision filed from the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to review was deemed incompetent.The High Court distinguished a Bombay High Court decision cited by the Tribunal, emphasizing that the circumstances in the Bombay case were not analogous to the issue at hand. The Bombay case involved a different context where the Tribunal's order was considered an order in appeal, thus allowing for a reference application. However, in the present matter, the Tribunal's order rejecting the review did not transform into an order under section 30, making the revision to the Tribunal from such an order incompetent. The Court held that the Tribunal was not legally competent to entertain the revision against the Deputy Commissioner's order. The judgment was delivered with a majority opinion, and the reference was answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. Consequently, no costs were awarded in the reference.In summary, the High Court of Patna deliberated on the competency of the Tribunal to entertain a revision filed against the Deputy Commissioner's order under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. Through a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, the Court concluded that a revision from an order refusing review was not permissible, as it did not fall under the appellate jurisdiction but remained an order under the review provision. By distinguishing a precedent from the Bombay High Court, the High Court affirmed that the Tribunal lacked the legal competence to consider the revision. The judgment was delivered with a majority opinion, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the revenue, with no costs awarded in the reference.