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%
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 assessee could raise for the first time before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal an objection to the inclusion of a turnover item that had not been disputed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Analysis: The governing provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 distinguish between the competency of an appeal and the width of the appellate power. The first appeal under section 31 and the further appeal under section 36 lie only against an order to which the appellant has a real objection. Where a particular turnover item was never made the subject of dispute before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the later attempt to dispute it before the Tribunal amounts, in effect, to raising a new and independent appeal on that item. The majority followed the existing line of authority holding that such a new ground cannot be entertained for the first time in second appeal. The broader view that a tax appeal is a rehearing and that the Tribunal may examine any question relating to the assessment was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedent.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to raise the new objection before the Tribunal for the first time; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant relief on that item.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a turnover item not disputed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be agitated for the first time before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, because the appellate competence must exist in relation to that item itself.