1977 (1) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court of Madras reviews tax revision cases for assessment years 1967-68 & 1968-69, faults summary dismissal

The High Court of Madras partially allowed the tax revision cases concerning assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. It found fault in the Deputy ... - Issues:1. Dismissal of revision petitions by Deputy Commissioner.2. Tribunal's decision to go into merits without remitting the matter to Deputy Commissioner.Analysis:The High Court of Madras addressed two petitions filed by the State against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The respondent, considering himself a dealer in cane jaggery and jaggery powder, filed returns that were initially accepted, leading to assessments. Subsequently, upon learning of a court judgment exempting agriculturists converting sugarcane into jaggery from sales tax, the respondent filed appeals with applications to excuse the delay. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitions, stating the respondent allowed assessments to finalize without appealing earlier. The Tribunal, however, held that the Deputy Commissioner erred in rejecting the revision petitions and proceeded to assess the respondent's status as an agriculturist converting sugarcane into jaggery. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, prompting the State to file revision cases.The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the Deputy Commissioner should not have dismissed the revision petitions summarily, as the respondent had valid reasons for the delay in filing appeals. The respondent acted promptly upon learning of the court judgment and attempted to appeal, but the delays were not excused. The Court found no fault in the respondent's actions and criticized the Deputy Commissioner's summary dismissal of the revision petitions without considering the merits.Regarding the Tribunal's decision to assess the merits without remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, the Court disagreed. The State requested a remittance to investigate certain facts, but the Tribunal rejected the request. The Court held that proper procedure required remitting the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to evaluate the petitions on their merits. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the tax revision cases, setting aside the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals on merits. The Tribunal was instructed to restore the appeals to its file and remit the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a detailed review of the revision petitions. No costs were awarded in the case.