TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the following questions to this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the entire assessment order has merged in the appeal order when the appeal involved only the penalty part of the composite order of assessment and penalty? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the true and correct interpretation of Section-57 of the B.S.T. Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revisiting authority being coordinate to the appellate authority is totally bereft of revisional jurisdiction under the said section? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on true and correct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 101 of 1993 before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("Tribunal"). One of the grounds to urge was that the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) was not an officer or person subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). (E) The Tribunal did not accept MSL's contention but remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) so that the revisional powers could be exercised after giving due hearing to MSL. (F) The MSL then filed a Rectification Application under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, alleging that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and binding decisions, though cited, were ignored by the Tribunal. (G) The Tribunal by its order dated 07 September 2002 allowed the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in exercising the powers under Section 62 because this provision confers very limited powers upon the Tribunal. She submitted that this was not some case of an error apparent on the face of the record that could have been corrected in an Application for Rectification made under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Accordingly, she submitted that the Tribunal's order dated 05 October 1996 is ex facie without jurisdiction, null and void. 7. Based on the above submissions, Ms. Chavan submitted that all three questions referred by the Tribunal may be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 8. We have considered Ms. Chavan's contentions in the context of the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be revised and no order in revision shall be made by him hereunder after the expiry of five years from such date] (b) [****] [Provided further that, the period of limitation of five years shall not apply in a case where the point or points involved in the revisions proceedings is the subject matter of any proceedings pending before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court; and in such a case it shall be competent for the Commissioner to decide the revision proceedings within eighteen months from the date of notice of hearing served on the assessee after the conclusion of the proceedings in the Tribunal, High Court or, as the case may be, Supreme Court. [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly provides that revisional powers can be exercised in respect of orders made by any officer or person 'subordinate to him'. This means that revisional powers can be exercised by an authority in relation to orders made by any officer or person who must be subordinate to him and not of coequal or coordinate rank. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Administration) are the officers of coequal and coordinate rank. Therefore, based upon any alleged delegation, the statutory provisions in Section 57(1)(a) could not have been contravened. A delegate, in the exercise of delegated powers, cannot contravene any provisions of the parent Act. The exercise of delegation must be consistent with the requirements of the Parent Act. 13. Ass....