Skip to content


State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division Vs. Ramakrishna Rice and Oil Mills, Arakandanallur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revn. Case No. 138 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad891; (1954)IMLJ548
ActsMadras General Sales-tax Act, 1939 - Sections 12A and 12B(1); Madras Sales-Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939 - Rule 18 and 18(3A)
AppellantState of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division
RespondentRamakrishna Rice and Oil Mills, Arakandanallur
Appellant AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Respondent AdvocateA.K. Pavithran, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - on appeal, the tribunal pointed out that under sub-rule 3-a of rule 18, the commercial tax officer had ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in the submission of the form or to condone the failure to furnish any of the particulars in that form, and after pointing out that the accounts had been maintained correctly and that the quantities of oil could always be gathered with accuracy from the information furnished by the assessee, directed the commercial tax officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of turnover under turnover and assessment rule 18, for the months of april 1950 to january 1951. it is against this order that the government has preferred this revision. and after pointing out the true interpretation of sub-rule 3-a, the tribunal directed the commercial..........required in form a-9 had not been furnislied. on appeal, the tribunal pointed out that under sub-rule 3-a of rule 18, the commercial tax officer had ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in the submission of the form or to condone the failure to furnish any of the particulars in that form, and after pointing out that the accounts had been maintained correctly and that the quantities of oil could always be gathered with accuracy from the information furnished by the assessee, directed the commercial tax officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of turnover under turnover and assessment rule 18, for the months of april 1950 to january 1951. it is against this order that the government has preferred this revision.2. it was not as if the tribunal itself took the power to.....
Judgment:

Rajagopalan, J.

1. The assessee claimed relief to the extent of Rs. 19,93,937-9-6. This was the amount included in the returns submitted in Form A-9, but the Commercial Tax Officer declined to consider the claim on the ground that all the particulars required in Form A-9 had not been furnislied. On appeal, the Tribunal pointed out that under sub-rule 3-A of Rule 18, the Commercial Tax Officer had ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in the submission of the Form or to condone the failure to furnish any of the particulars in that Form, and after pointing out that the accounts had been maintained correctly and that the quantities of oil could always be gathered with accuracy from the information furnished by the assessee, directed the Commercial Tax Officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of turnover under Turnover and Assessment Rule 18, for the months of April 1950 to January 1951. It is against this order that the Government has preferred this revision.

2. It was not as if the Tribunal itself took the power to condone the delay or to condone the omission and directed exclusion of this amount from the turnover. What the Tribunal pointed out was that the discretion was vested in the Commercial Tax Officer; but that the exercise of that discretion was not judicious. And after pointing out the true interpretation of sub-rule 3-A, the Tribunal directed the Commercial Tax Officer to go into the whole question again after condoning the failure to mention the particulars required, particulars of a comparatively minor nature in the circumstances of this case. We are unable to see anything wrong in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to call for any interference in revision by us. They had jurisdiction to pass the order they did, and we are not called upon to say how that discretion should be further exercised by the Commercial Tax Officer, which was left virtually intact, except for a direction to them that the failure to furnish the particulars could well be condoned.

3. Even before the revision ease was taken up for hearing, Mr. Pavithran for the respondent took a preliminary objection, that subsequent to the order dated 26-11-1952 against which the Government preferred this revision petition, there was an application by the assessee to the Tribunal itself to review that order, and there was a further order of the Tribunal on 23-6-1953. Mr. Pavithran contended that this revision petition was not competent. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on this point, except to observe that the question of the exclusion or otherwise of the turnover of about Rs. 19 lakhs was never the subject-matter of the application for review or of the order thereon.

4. The petition preferred by the Governmentfails on the merits, and is dismissed with costs,Rs. 250/-.


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