TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Deputy Commissioner's Order Upheld under Kerala Sales Tax Act</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam Versus Cochin Agencies</h3> Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam Versus Cochin Agencies - [1989] 74 STC 389 (Ker) Issues:Validity of the order passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.Analysis:The case involves the Revenue as the petitioner seeking revision of an assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the year 1979-80. The Deputy Commissioner initiated revision proceedings after discovering that excise duty paid by the assessee was not considered in the original assessment. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order. The key question was whether the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 4th October, 1985, was valid under section 35(2A) of the Act.The Deputy Commissioner's power to revise an order is subject to certain conditions under section 35 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal contended that the excise duty paid was not a point decided in the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal focused on the adequacy of the taxable turnover, not the excise duty paid. The Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 35(2A) allows revision on points not decided in an appeal or revision.The Appellate Tribunal's interpretation was deemed erroneous by the High Court. The Court clarified that the distinction between the subject of an appeal and points not decided in an appeal is crucial. The Court highlighted that if a specific point was not addressed or decided in an appeal, the Deputy Commissioner can exercise revisional powers under section 35(2A). The Court emphasized that the focus should be on any point not expressly decided in an appeal, such as the excise duty paid by the assessee in this case.Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and upheld the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 4th October, 1985. The Court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction under section 35(2A) was justified and in accordance with the law. The tax revision case was allowed, and the petition was granted in favor of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 