https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155224 Under the unamended rule 44-A then in force, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for revision under section 20, but only to the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Legal. The Commissioner therefore lacked jurisdiction to revise the appellate order, and a later amendment could not cure that absence of authority at the relevant time. The contrary finding that the assessee had not produced the relevant contracts before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was also inconsistent with the record, which showed that copies of the agreement had been produced by the authorised representative. The revisional order was quashed and the assessee's appeals were allowed. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:46:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155224 Under the unamended rule 44-A then in force, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for revision under section 20, but only to the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Legal. The Commissioner therefore lacked jurisdiction to revise the appellate order, and a later amendment could not cure that absence of authority at the relevant time. The contrary finding that the assessee had not produced the relevant contracts before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was also inconsistent with the record, which showed that copies of the agreement had been produced by the authorised representative. The revisional order was quashed and the assessee's appeals were allowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155224