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>Assistant Commissioner's Order Not Final Revisional Order under Bengal Finance Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal and Others Versus Canton Carpentry Works (P) Ltd. and Another</h3> Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal and Others Versus Canton Carpentry Works (P) Ltd. and Another - [1991] 82 STC 138 (WBTT) Issues:- Determination of whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was a final revisional order within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.- Jurisdiction of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal to entertain revisions based on the Assistant Commissioner's order.- Interpretation of section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act regarding the Tribunal's power to revise final appellate or revisional orders from an order of assessment.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the question of whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner constituted a final revisional order under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The application raised the issue of jurisdiction of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal to entertain revisions based on this order. The Tribunal entertained the revisions under section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act, which allows revision of final appellate or revisional orders from an assessment order. The crux of the matter was whether the Assistant Commissioner's order constituted a final revisional order to attract the Tribunal's revisional jurisdiction.The applicants contended that the Assistant Commissioner's order did not qualify as a revisional order under section 20(3)(c) of the 1941 Act. They relied on precedents to argue that a mere refusal to exercise suo motu revisional power does not constitute a revisional order. The judgment cited decisions from Madras and Patna High Courts to support this view. It was emphasized that an order declining to use suo motu revision power is not a final revisional order, as required by the Act.The judgment analyzed the Assistant Commissioner's order, which consisted of two parts: a refusal to invoke suo motu revision power and a statement regarding the assessment order's legality and propriety. The Tribunal held that even the latter part of the order, which examined the assessment order, did not amount to a revisional order. It was concluded that the Assistant Commissioner did not consider the legality or propriety of the assessment order through suo motu revision. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in entertaining the revision applications based on this order.In conclusion, the judgment allowed the application, setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal below. It was held that the Assistant Commissioner's order did not constitute a final revisional order under the 1941 Act. The Technical Member agreed with the decision, and the application was allowed.
TaxTMI 