1981 (7) TMI 80 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court limits Commissioner's power to revise orders during pending appeal, upholds Tribunal's authority

The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of Sales Tax cannot revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner while a second appeal is ... Tribunal — Appellate jurisdiction — Second appeal — Appeal pending before the Tribunal — Commissioner of Sales Tax cannot interfere Issues Involved:1. Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner when the assessee's second appeal against that order is pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal.2. The scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Revisional Power of the Commissioner During Pendency of Second Appeal:The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax could exercise revisional powers under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner while a second appeal against that order was pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and selling vegetable oil, had its turnover estimated and tax and penalty levied by the Sales Tax Officer. The Assistant Commissioner reduced these amounts on appeal, but the appellant, still dissatisfied, filed a second appeal with the Tribunal. During the pendency of this appeal, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices to revise the appellate orders, which led to objections and subsequent appeals by the appellant.The High Court upheld the Commissioner's power to revise the order, reasoning that the statute did not provide another forum to protect the Revenue's interests. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that once the Tribunal, the supreme appellate and revisional authority, is seized of the case, a subordinate authority like the Commissioner cannot claim jurisdiction to revise the same order. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be nullified by concurrent jurisdiction of the Commissioner unless explicitly stated by the statute.2. Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:The Court analyzed the structure of appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Act. It noted that Section 55 provides for appeals against assessment orders, with the Tribunal at the apex of the appellate hierarchy. Section 57(1) allows the Commissioner to revise orders passed by subordinate officers, while the Tribunal can revise orders of the Commissioner. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner is subordinate to the Tribunal in quasi-judicial matters.The Court rejected the High Court's view that concurrent jurisdiction was necessary to safeguard Revenue interests, pointing out that Section 55(6) grants appellate authorities, including the Tribunal, the power to enhance assessments in both first and second appeals. This power ensures that Revenue interests are protected without needing concurrent jurisdiction for the Commissioner. The Court found that the High Court overlooked this provision and erroneously concluded that the Commissioner could revise orders pending appeal before the Tribunal.The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal has the authority to enhance assessments in second appeals, thus protecting Revenue interests. The Court also noted that similar provisions in other statutes, like the Maharashtra Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1962, explicitly prohibit revisional powers during pending appeals, supporting the conclusion that the Commissioner cannot interfere with orders pending before the Tribunal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the Tribunal's order and the revisional proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court concluded that the Commissioner could not exercise revisional powers over an order pending appeal before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal's power to enhance assessments sufficiently protects Revenue interests.