TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (1) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount of sales tax had not been deposited by the assessee before preferring the appeal. The assessee thought that there were obvious errors in the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 24th January, 1967. On 10th February, 1967, therefore, it filed an application for review before the Deputy Commissioner praying to him to review the order dated 24th January, 1967, and entertain the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 11th September, 1967, rejected the review application and refused to review the order dated 24th January, 1967, and entertain the appeal. The assessee went up in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. One of the objections taken on behalf of the revenue before the Tribunal was that under the Act the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31(1) with section 34A of the Act, it will read as follows: "Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, an order passed on an appeal under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 30 may, on application, be revised- (a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and (b) by the Tribunal, if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner." Sub-section (2) confers a power of revision on the Tribunal to revise any revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 31(1)(a). It is not necessary to refer to other subsections of section 31 as no other sub-section is relevant for determina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... August, 1967, was incompetent. I may add that it was open to the assessee to go to the Tribunal in revision from the order dated 24th January, 1967. But the assessee did not choose to do so. 4.. The Tribunal has relied upon a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay v. S.C. Cambatta Co. Ltd.[1956] 29 I.T.R. 118; A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 509., in support of its view that revision was competent. In my opinion, the ratio of the Bombay decision is not at all applicable to the point at issue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had passed an appellate order. On being asked to state a case by the High Court, it stated a case on the question of law, on which it was asked to state. The question of law referred was an....