TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated September 22, 1993 the additional demand of Rs. 9,96,850 was reduced to Rs. 19,476. The Revisional Authority, viz., the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, invoked its powers under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. It found that the order dated September 22, 1993 was wholly without jurisdiction as District Gurgaon had been placed under the charge of the Appellate Authority at Rohtak instead of Faridabad. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The order of the Revisional Authority having been confirmed by the Tribunal, the assessee has filed the present writ petition. Copies of the orders passed by the Revisional Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s behalf. He has also relied upon certain decisions to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage. 4.. On the other hand, Mr. Goyal, appearing for the respondents has contended that order dated September 9, 1993 had been issued by the competent authority. By this the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority had been transferred. This factual position had been pointed out to the authority by the State representative at the time of hearing of the case. Despite that he had proceeded to pass the order. In this situation, the action of the Revisional Authority in invoking its suo motu jurisdiction was absolutely legal and valid. Learned counsel further maintains that the Tribunal had rightly affirmed the order passed by the Revisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication has been filed to controvert this assertion. It is, thus, clear that the factum of the change in jurisdiction had been communicated to the Appellate Authority at the time of the hearing of the appeal. Despite that, it had proceeded to pass an order in favour of the assessee and to reduce its liability from Rs. 9,96,850 to Rs. 19,476. Still further, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority (a copy is at annexure P-5 with the petition) shows that it purports to have been pronounced on September 22, 1993. Yet, the copy was issued on October 28, 1993. Still further, the order appears to bear a number given by the stenographer and not by the office. It is in the background of this factual position that the arguments as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, the Revisional Authority was justified in invoking this power. Apparently, the Commissioner had transferred the jurisdiction with some objective. If despite the order of the Commissioner, an Appellate Authority had proceeded to decide a matter, it could be legally said that the action was without jurisdiction. To examine this issue the authority could have sent for the file and considered the matter. In the present case the Revisional Authority had done so. It had given a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the order be not declared to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner had availed of that opportunity. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority held that there was no "justification for the Appellate Authority to show unnece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d down in the above case has not been violated. 10.. Mr. Sawhney went on to contend that the order of the Revisional Authority suffered from an apparent error inasmuch as it expressed an opinion that the appeal was not fixed for hearing but only the stay matter was to be considered. 11.. A perusal of the order shows that the Revisional Authority has observed that "the appeal case was not fixed for hearing on September 22, 1993........ the case was decided without giving any notice to the department". Assuming that the learned counsel is correct in his submission, still we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority was without jurisdiction. Thus, the view taken by the Revisio....