Skip to content


Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited Vs. Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue (C.T.) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 2133 of 1966 and 1233 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1973]32STC207(Mad)
AppellantBurmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited
RespondentCommissioner for Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue (C.T.) and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.V. Subramaniam, Adv. for ;Subbaraya Aiyar, ;Sethuraman, ;Padmanabhan and ;N.S. Varadachari, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateK. Venkataswami, First Assistant Government Pleader
Cases ReferredRaj Brothers Agencies v. The Board of Revenue
Excerpt:
- .....passed by a lower authority, such power could either be invoked suo motu or on an application by a party aggrieved. the substance of the matter is that the investiture is by the legislature of the power of revision in the particular authority. for instance, section 115 of the code of civil procedure vests in the high court revisional power in terms identical with those of section 25 of the madras sales of motor spirit taxation act, 1939 and still down the decades this court has very rarely invoked the power suo motu. the power has always beeninvoked by this court on applications by aggrieved parties. even if section 25 has prescribed the power of revision to be exercised suo motu, the power could be invoked on an application by the aggrieved party. once the power is found vested, it.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, C.J.

1. We think that this petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench to which one of us was a party, in Raj Brothers Agencies v. The Board of Revenue (W.P. No. 4629 of 1965) [1972] 30 S.T.C. 410. The point is whether, Under Section 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, the power of the Board of Revenue could be invoked on an application or it is confined to the Board itself invoking the power suo motu. We do not have the slightest doubt that, where a power is vested in a public authority, as Under Section 25 of the Act, to call for and examine the record of any order passed by a lower authority, such power could either be invoked suo motu or on an application by a party aggrieved. The substance of the matter is that the investiture is by the Legislature of the power of revision in the particular authority. For instance, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests in the High Court revisional power in terms identical with those of Section 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939 and still down the decades this court has very rarely invoked the power suo motu. The power has always beeninvoked by this court on applications by aggrieved parties. Even if Section 25 has prescribed the power of revision to be exercised suo motu, the power could be invoked on an application by the aggrieved party. Once the power is found vested, it makes no difference how it is invoked, either suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party. In this particular case, the Board took the view that the power could not be invoked on an application by the assessee and that view is clearly wrong.

2. The learned First Assistant Government Pleader, however, contends that the latter half of the impugned order dealt with merits of the assessment. That is no doubt true. But the order has given no reasons and it is quite perfunctory. We are not satisfied that the Board has properly applied its mind to the merits of the issues involved. On that view, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the Board of Revenue will dispose of the relative petition afresh in accordance with law. No costs.

3. In view of the above direction, W.P. No. 1233 of 1967 becomes unnecessary and it is dismissed. No costs.


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