Skip to content


Babu Pasu and Co. Vs. the State of Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtSales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in19567STC507Tribunal
AppellantBabu Pasu and Co.
RespondentThe State of Bombay
Excerpt:
.....but as the said payment was not made, he summarily rejected the appeal. the applicants filed a revision application against this order which was heard by the additional collector of sales tax. that application was again late beyond the period of limitation by 12 days, and the additional collector of sales tax dismissed the application on the said ground. in the second para of his order, however, he decided to hear the application "on suo motu grounds" and he reduced the total tax and penalty due from rs. 9,018-6-3 as fixed by the sales tax officer to rs. 3,385-11-0, which was no doubt a substantial reduction. this case is similar as regards this point to the case of v.c. desai & co. v. the state of bombay 2 s.t.d. 57, in which the collector who, after upholding the order of.....
Judgment:
1. In this case the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax required the applicants to make a part payment of Rs. 1,000 before their appeal could be entertained, but as the said payment was not made, he summarily rejected the appeal. The applicants filed a revision application against this order which was heard by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. That application was again late beyond the period of limitation by 12 days, and the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dismissed the application on the said ground. In the second para of his order, however, he decided to hear the application "on suo motu grounds" and he reduced the total tax and penalty due from Rs. 9,018-6-3 as fixed by the Sales Tax Officer to Rs. 3,385-11-0, which was no doubt a substantial reduction. This case is similar as regards this point to the case of V.C. Desai & Co. v. The State of Bombay 2 S.T.D. 57, in which the Collector who, after upholding the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Collector and rejecting the revision application made to him, dealt with the application before him suo motu, and gave the applicants a deduction in respect of the turnover.

Thereafter, the applicants came to this Tribunal contending that the Collector should have allowed them a (1) 2 S.T.D. 57. deduction on a different, head also. This Tribunal observed : "The applicants have in our opinion no locus standi. They allowed their appeals to become invalid for want of payment, of the tax and their application for revision having been rightly dismissed they have really no ground to come before this Tribunal, What the Collector has done amounts to a concession and the applicants cannot' be heard to complain if it does not go far enough." Following this decision, we do not think that we would be justified in going into the question whether the Collector in this case, acting suo motu, has not given sufficient relief. The application is, therefore, dismissed.


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