Skip to content


Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion Vs. Tharia Mal Balchand and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Sales Tax Case No. 189 of 1980
Judge
Reported in[1987]66STC151(Raj)
AppellantCommercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion
RespondentTharia Mal Balchand and anr.
Appellant Advocate G.S. Bapna, Adv.
Respondent Advocate V.K. Singhal, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....sales tax act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was not maintainable, because the board of revenue failed to pass an order within the period of 180 days and it had no jurisdiction to pass an order on the application filed before it under section 15(1) of the act after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 180 days. sub-section (3a) of section 15 of the act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the rajasthan sales tax (amendment) act, 1984, provided that if the board has failed to dispose of the application under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act within the prescribed time, it shall not thereafter pass any order on that application and the applicant would, within 90 days of the expiration of the time prescribed in sub-section (1), apply to the high court for..........under section 15(2) of of the act could be maintainable. in the present case, the board of revenue passed an order on the application under section 15(1) of the act on april 16, 1979i beyond the period of 180 days of the receipt of the application under section 15(1) of the act. the present application has been filed on the basis of the order passed by the board of revenue on april 16, 1979, rejecting the application under section 15(1) of the act, with the statement that a copy of the order was served upon the assessing authority on may 30, 1979. the present application under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the act was moved on august 27, 1979. it is clear from a perusal of the provisions of section 15(1), (2) and (3a) of the act that the board of revenue was not competent to.....
Judgment:

Dwarka Prasad, J.

1. In this case a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the assessee that the application for reference under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not maintainable, because the Board of Revenue failed to pass an order within the period of 180 days and it had no jurisdiction to pass an order on the application filed before it under Section 15(1) of the Act after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 180 days.

2. The order of the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue dismissing the special appeal filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Jaipur, was passed on May 8, 1978. The application for making a reference was filed by the assessing authority under Section 15(1) of the Act on September 21, 1978. The period of 180 days elapsed in March, 1979. Until the expiry of the period of 180 days, the Board of Revenue did not pass any order under Section 15(1) of the Act. Sub-section (3A) of Section 15 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, provided that if the Board has failed to dispose of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act within the prescribed time, it shall not thereafter pass any order on that application and the applicant would, within 90 days of the expiration of the time prescribed in Sub-section (1), apply to the High Court for calling the reference. Thus this application could be made under Sub-section (3A) of Section 15 of the Act after 180 days of the making of the application under Section 15(1) of the Act and within a period of 90 days from the expiry of the said period of 180 days, but in such a case no application under Section 15(2) of of the Act could be maintainable. In the present case, the Board of Revenue passed an order on the application under Section 15(1) of the Act on April 16, 1979i beyond the period of 180 days of the receipt of the application under Section 15(1) of the Act. The present application has been filed on the basis of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on April 16, 1979, rejecting the application under Section 15(1) of the Act, with the statement that a copy of the order was served upon the assessing authority on May 30, 1979. The present application under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act was moved on August 27, 1979. It is clear from a perusal of the provisions of Section 15(1), (2) and (3A) of the Act that the Board of Revenue was not competent to pass an order on the application presented to it under Section 15(1) of the Act after the expiry of the period of 180 days of the receipt of such application. It is not disputed in the present case that the Board of Revenue has passed the order dated April 16, 1979, after the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days as specified in Section 15(1) of the Act. As such the present application under Section 15(2) of the Act is incompetent.

3. Learned counsel for the department submitted that an earlier application under Sub-section (3A) of Section 15 of the Act was filed by the department on May 19, 1979, but the same was withdrawn on July 17, 1979, on the ground that the Board of Revenue had decided the application under Section 15(1) of the Act filed by the department before the Board of Revenue. It was for the department to continue the application earlier filed, but so far as the present application under Section 15(2) of the Act is concerned, the same cannot be held to be maintainable, because such an application could only be filed after the Board of Revenue had passed an order on their petition under Section 15(1) of the Act within the prescribed period of 180 days. If the Board of Revenue did not pass any order within the statutory period, then the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass an order, after the expiry of the period of 180 days of the receipt of the application under Section 15(1) of the Act. Thus the order passed by the Board of Revenue on April 16, 1979, was without jurisdiction and no application for referring the matter under Section 15(2) of the Act could be maintained with reference to such an order passed by the Board of Revenue.

4. We, therefore, hold that the present application under Section 16(2) of the Act is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.


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