1997 (2) TMI 523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed his return for the purchase of cotton from July 1, 1975 to March 28, 1976. The Assessing Authority imposed tax on the purchase of cotton at the rate of four per cent and passed the assessment order on February 7, 1978. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, for rectification of the assessment order on the ground that the sales tax on the purchase of cotton during the relevant period, i.e., from July 1, 1975 to March 28, 1976, was only three per cent and it was subsequently enhanced to four per cent by notification issued on March 29, 1976. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the rate of purchase tax should have been assessed at the rate of three per cent for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isdiction of the Board to exercise its revisional power. This contention too has to be rejected. The power is conferred on the Board to remedy any injustice. It is open to an assessee or the Revenue to bring to the notice of the Board any error made by the subordinate authorities. It is up to the Board to consider whether the case is a fit case for exercising its revisional jurisdiction. If the Board had gone into the case and come to the conclusion that there was no justification for exercising its jurisdiction under section 34, then in the absence of any vitiating circumstance recognised by law, the High Court would not have interfered with the discretion of the Board. But what has happened in this case is that the Board had refused to ex....