1976 (2) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he fitting of rubber tyres on metal tank wheels and top rollers for the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, assessed at 12 per cent. This amount was included in the taxable turnover returned by the dealers themselves. The petitioners did not file an appeal objecting to the assessment of any portion of the turnover. On 23rd December, 1970, the petitioners addressed the assessing officer requesting to revise the assessment for 1968-69 deleting the turnover of Rs. 1,90,112 and also to revise the assessment for 1967-68 in respect of similar turnover. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road II, Madras, by his proceedings dated 26th February, 1971, informed the petitioners that the assessments made for 1967-68 and 1968-69 could not be revised at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Board was invoked obviously under section 34 of the Act and about this there is no controversy. While declining to revise the orders passed by the assessing authority, the Board of Revenue merely reduced the rate of tax. It is against this order of the Board of Revenue that the present tax appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the entire proceedings so far taken by the assessees had been misconceived. However, the assessees had invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act. That being a jurisdiction to exercise the suo motu powers of revision vested in the Deputy Commissioner, the ultimate order, if any, passed by the Deputy Commissioner would also be in exerci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Commissioner in the present case dated 11th April, 1972, is not an order made under section 32(1) of the Act, no revision to the Board of Revenue against such proceedings is competent. Consequently, when the Board of Revenue declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, what the Board of Revenue did was merely to intimate the petitioners that the Board was not prepared to exercise its suo motu powers of revision under section 34(1) of the Act, and that intimation itself will not constitute an order under section 34(1) of the Act so as to enable the petitioners to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court under section 37 of the Act. What we have stated with regard to the Deputy Commissioner's interference under se....