Skip to content


Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited Vs. Board of Revenue and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petitions Nos. 374 and 375 of 1960
Judge
Reported in[1963]14STC13(AP)
AppellantBurmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited
RespondentBoard of Revenue and ors.
Appellant Advocate T. Anantha Babu, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThird Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....reddy, c.j.1. the question at issue in both these writ petitions filed to quash the orders of the board of revenue is whether the sales of petrol by the petitioner to the government partake of the character of inter-state sales falling within the purview of article 286(2) of the constitution and they are immune from the madras sales of motor spirit taxation act, 1939.2. it is unnecessary to state the facts of the case having regard to the course we propose to adopt.3. the commercial tax officer called upon the petitioner to show cause why the sales of petrol should not be assessed to sales tax for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 on the transactions of sale effected between these two periods. the petitioner objected to this on the ground that the sales in question were inter-state sale.....
Judgment:

P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. The question at issue in both these writ petitions filed to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue is whether the sales of petrol by the petitioner to the Government partake of the character of inter-State sales falling within the purview of Article 286(2) of the Constitution and they are immune from the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939.

2. It is unnecessary to state the facts of the case having regard to the course we propose to adopt.

3. The Commercial Tax Officer called upon the petitioner to show cause why the sales of petrol should not be assessed to sales tax for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 on the transactions of sale effected between these two periods. The petitioner objected to this on the ground that the sales in question were inter-State sale transactions protected from taxation by Article 286(2) of the Constitution. The Commercial Tax Officer overruled this objection and assessed the petitioner to sales tax.

4. Appeals were carried by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, but to no purpose.

5. The revisions to the Board of Revenue shared the same fate.

6. It is the orders of the Board of Revenue that are sought to be quashed in these writ petitions.

7. It is unnecessary for us to go into the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitions except the one dealing with the nature of the orders of the Board of Revenue The order of the Board, which is sought to be quashed in W.P. No. 374 of 1960, is in these words :

The Board sees no reason to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantapur.The revision petition is rejected.

8. The order impugned in W.P. No. 375 of 1960 runs thus :

The Board has examined the matter. It sees no reason to interfere in the matter.The revision petition is therefore rejected.

9. We do not think that these orders of the Board of Revenue could be allowed to stand. The point that fell for determination by the Board of Revenue related to the applicability of Article 286(2) of the Constitution and it was to be discussed with reference to the facts established in the case. Unfortunately, the Board of Revenue thought that it was relieved of its duty of applying its mind to the questions of fact and law arising in the matter. The right of revision is conferred on the petitioner under Section 25 of the Act and he is, therefore, entitled to know the reasons that prompted the Board to reject the revision petitions and to concur with the opinion of the assessing authorities. The orders, which are very laconic, do not at all indicate that the Board had applied its mind to the various aspects of the problem that posed themselves for solution before it. In cases of this type we expect the Tribunal exercising revisional jurisdiction to indicate that it had considered the points that were raised before it and also the reasons for its decision. The Board of Revenue exercises quasi-judicial functions and as such it is expected to give consideration to the questions that present themselves before it.

10. For these reasons, we have no option but to quash the orders impugned before us and to send back the matter to the Board for determination of the points that arise in the matter afresh. The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to present its case before the Board of Revenue.

11. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed with costs in W.P. No. 374 of 1960. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 (one hundred only).


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //