2003 (11) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g point.   2.. It has rejected the argument that was presented for the Revenue that the computation of time should begin from the date of service on the Deputy Commissioner. Section 38 refers to "...any person who objects to such order of the Deputy Commissioner...". The Deputy Commissioners are many. The section does not specify which Deputy Commissioner. It requires that the revision should be preferred by a person who holds a responsible position in the higher rank of the Deputy Commissioner and that the filing of the revision to the Taxation Special Tribunal is not to be left merely to the assessing officer, who is on a lower rank. The mention of the Deputy Commissioner in that section, therefore, is not intended to mandate t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also provide for service of copy of the order on the Deputy Commissioner do not imply that the Deputy Commissioner is at liberty to take the date of service of the copy on him as the starting point for computation of limitation for the purpose of filing the revision under section 38. 5.. Time will begin to run from the date on which the copy is served on the State representative. It is for the State representative to co-ordinate with the concerned Deputy Commissioner and ensure that the revision is filed within the time allowed under section 38. 6.. This position in law was set out by the Tribunal in the impugned decision rendered by it on 3rd January, 2001, reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.K. Herbals Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 124 STC 695.....