1977 (8) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of a sum of a little over Rs. 80,000, representing accommodation sales. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax exercised his suo motu power of revision under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which enables him to call for any order passed by any officer or authority below that of an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit. This revisional power is under sub-section (2) of section 35, subject to three limitations one of which is that it shall not be exercised if more than four years have expired after passing of the order sought to be revised. In pursuance of his decision to exercise the revisional power, the Deputy Commissioner issued exhibit P2 notice dated 28th February, 1971, to the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the learned Judge was dealt with and examined in detail and, at the end of the discussion, the learned Judge concluded in paragraph 6 that the objection taken to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 35 of the Act cannot be sustained. Having held so, the learned Judge proceeded to observe as follows: "7. It has not been seriously contended before me that, if the case falls within the ambit of section 35 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to remand the case for a further enquiry and disposal according to law in the light of the directions given by him. Then the question arises whether the Sales Tax Officer, to whom the case was remanded, can pass an order pursuan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te. The proposition as such is uncontestable, and was not, very fairly, contested by the counsel for the respondent. It was recently reaffirmed by this court in C.C. Transport Co. v. State of Kerala[1977] 40 S.T.C. 444. (T. R. C. Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of 1975). 3.. Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that, in the instant case, the sales tax assessment had not been set aside in toto, but the remittal back was only for the limited purpose of re-doing the question of exemption and no more. We are unable to agree. On the terms of exhibit P5 order, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment order had been set aside and the assessing authority had to begin afresh on a clean slate. 4.. It was then contended by the counsel for ....