1982 (1) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urnished three quarterly returns but failed to pay the tax on the basis thereof. It did not appear before the assessing authority during the assessment proceedings so that an ex Parte assessment had to be made. The taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 80,000 by an order dated 8th July, 1976. The dealer filed an appeal against this order under section 9 as well as an application for setting aside the ex parte order under section 30 of the Act. Allowing the appeal partly, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, reduced the taxable turnover to Rs. 70,000 by order dated 4th August, 1977. The dealer's revision was partly allowed by the revising authority by order dated 24th January, 1979, and the taxable turnover reduced to Rs. 60,00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assailed in appeal by the dealer under section 3. The appellate order was open to revision under section 10 by the revising authority. Now it is subject to scrutiny by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 10 of the Act. The appellate authority under section 9 could confirm, set aside or modify the assessment order. It still has jurisdiction to do so. The revising authority could look into the order passed by the appellate authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order and pass such order as it thought fit. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the section 10 extends inter alia, to the confirmation, cancellation or variance of the order in appeal. It is clear that the revising authority like ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s its stands today, does not contain a provision permitting an inferior authority to set aside an order which has, on merits, been affirmed by the superior authority. In Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] 48 STC 248 (SC); AIR 1981 SC 1617, Pathak, J., speaking for the court, said: "Now it seems to us past question that when the appellate jurisdiction of a superior authority is invoked against an order and that authority is seized of the case it is inconceivable for a subordinate authority to claim to exercise jurisdiction to revise that very order. The Tribunal is the supreme appellate and revisional authority under the statute. It cannot be divested of its jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of an ord....