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 could, in exercise of suo motu revisional powers, itself levy penalty under section 12(3) when the assessing authority had not passed any order under that provision while making the assessment.
Analysis: Penalty under section 12(3) formed part of the assessment process, but revisional jurisdiction could be exercised only in respect of an order passed by a subordinate authority. The record showed that the assessing authority had neither expressly nor impliedly made any order under section 12(3) at the assessment stage. In the absence of any order levying penalty, there was nothing for the Board to revise. The Board could revise an existing erroneous order and substitute a proper one, but it could not assume the original statutory power which the assessing authority had not exercised. Section 34 also contemplated revision of an order already passed by a subordinate authority, whether express or implied.
Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to make an original order levying penalty under section 12(3) in revision, and the penalty order was liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional authority can act only on an order already passed by a subordinate authority, and cannot itself make an original assessment or penalty order that the assessing authority failed to make.