Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1982 (2) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 8th May, 1975. After certain adjournments, the appeals were dismissed on 28th July, 1975, under rule 49 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules for non-removal of defects. Against this summary rejection of the appeals, second appeals were filed by the assessee where exercise of power by the first appellate authority in rejecting the appeals was challenged for want of reasonable opportunity and merits of the appeals were canvassed. The Tribunal came to uphold the rejection of the first appeals by the Assistant Commissioner and further held that once the appeals had been summarily dismissed by the first appellate authority, the amb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consideration in that case was whether upon summary rejection of a first appeal under rule 49 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, a second appeal would lie to the Tribunal. Narasimham, C. J., relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mela Ram & Sons v. Income-tax Commissioner [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC); AIR 1956 SC 367, to hold that even when a first appeal was summarily dismissed, it amounted to an appellate order, and therefore, a second appeal lay. From both the decisions, we do not find any support for the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that in second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee would be entitled to raise contentions on merit of the matter. As already pointed out, the assessee's first appeal was thro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the right which the assessee has under sub-section (1) of section 22 read with rule 53(4) ibid of going up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue; and when he does so go up, his appeal is not and cannot be restricted to the examination of the question whether the dismissal for default was proper or not. The dismissal in default cannot put the assessee in a worse position than if his appeal had been dismissed on merits, in which case he would have had a right of appeal to the Board of Revenue on the merits of his assessment................." These observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court do somewhat support the petitioner's stand, but we do not see any justification to discard the view in Natabar Sahoo's case (printed at page 194 inf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the assessing authorities while disposing of the second appeal? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was required under the law to decide the appeal on merit, i.e., on the point of assessment and liability to pay enhanced tax irrespective of the fact that the first appeal was dismissed summarily on the point of limitation?" 2.. The assessee is a grocer carrying on business within the town of Cuttack. For the assessment year 1966-67, the accounts of the assessee were rejected and a best judgment assessment was entered. The assessee preferred a first appeal challenging the additional demand of Rs. 170.31. In the memorandum of appeal, the assessee declared that he had re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arred by limitation is not disputed. Mr. Pasayat for the assessee also does not dispute that the first appellate authority under the Act has no power to condone delay in filing of the appeal though according to him the first appellate authority had been given such a power under the parent Act and while making certain amendments to section 23, by oversight the corresponding provision empowering the first appellate authority to condone delay in preferring of appeals has been omitted from the statute. According to Mr. Pasayat even though the first appeal had been dismissed on the ground of limitation and merits of the case had not been examined, since the summary dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of limitation amounted to a decision....