Therefore the interference by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to the prejudice of the assessee in the purported exercise of his appellate power, was clearly violative of the assessees vested rights.
Hence this appeal.
In the companyrse of its judgment the High Court observed The immunity or protection which the assessee had under the 1939 Act so as to save the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the primary assessing authority, from being enhanced by the exercise of the appellate power by the Commercial Tax Officer, is a vested right, which cannot be interfered with or in any way impaired having regard to the specific provision of S. 61 1 of the Madras Act 1 of 195 9.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the turnover of the assessee to certain extent.
That Act came into force on April 1, 1959.
In the companyrse of the hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal, the State representative filed a petition seeking enhancement of the turnover of the assessee on certain grounds.
sioner but under the 1959 Act both the assessee as well as the Deputy Commissioner can appeal against his order.
To protect the interest of the State, special powers were companyferred on the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
The power companyferred on him under s. 31 of the 1959 Act companybines to an extent both the appellate power as well as the special power the Commercial Tax Officer had under s. 11 and 12 1 of the 1939 Act.
As against that decision, the State of Madras went up in revision to the High Court under s. 38 of the 1959 Act.
If the number existence of the right of appeal on the part of the Department is companysidered as an immunity or protection and if that immunity or protection is companysidered as a vested right, the assessee will have that right both at the stage of the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as at the stage of the appeal to the Tribunal.
That petition was dismissed.
However, there was always the peril of the Commercial Tax Officer, who was also the revising authority, revising the assessment to his prejudice in exercise of his revisional power, but that peril effectively disappeared when under the 1959 Act, the revisional power was companyferred upon the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and number upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Its appeal was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who enhanced the assessment.
As seen earlier under the 1939 Act, the Revenue companyld number have appealed either against the order of the assessing authority or against that of the appellate authority.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 3, 1967 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
The Commercial Tax Officer companyld have exercised his special powers under s. 12 1 of the 1939 Act within three years from the date the assessment order was served on the assessee.
250 of 1964 Revision No.
The assessees turnover for the year 1958 59 stood charged with the liability to pay tax as leviable under the 1939 Act.
If the Deputy Commissioner was number satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal on questions of law, he companyld have gone up in revi sion to the High Court.
The High Court held that the assessee had a vested right at the time when the 1959 Act came into force to prevent the Commercial Tax Officer from enhancing the assessment in the companyrse of the appeal preferred by him.
The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was passed after the companying into force of the 1959 Act and on that date the assessee had numbervested right to prevent an enhancement of his assessment by the future appellate authority, namely the Tribunal.
The 1939 Act was repealed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to be hereinafter referred to as the 1959 Act .
It held that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the petition filed by the State representative for enhancement of the assessment was number maintainable.
The assessee is a dealer in Hides and Skins at Madras.
But on a further appeal, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to enhance the assessment.
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer on February 15, 1957.
In our opinion this decision proceeded on a wrong basis.
Aggrieved by that order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal to Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As seen earlier the assessee was assessed after that Act came into force.
During the pendency of the appeal, the 1959 Act came into force on April 1, 1959.
Therein the assessee was assessed to sales tax under the 1939 Act.
During the pendency of its appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, the 1959 Act came into force.
This case was decided by the same bench which decided Swami Cos case.
Thereafter the appeal was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter in revision to the High Court.
The assessee filed its appeal under S. 31 of that Act and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with that appeal under that provision.
The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner only reduced the turnover to the benefit of the assessee, and it is clear that there was numberviolation of the vested right of the assessee by reason of the said order.
K. P. Shankardass, R. Vasudeva Pillai, P. Keshava Pillai Rajiv Sawhney, for the respondent.
The assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes disallowed the two exemp tions asked for by the assessee on the ground that there was interpolation in the, relative documents companyering the turnover.
T. Desai and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
Under the, 1959 Act, he can enhance the assessment only during the pendency of the appeal and number thereafter.
We are companycerned herein with its assessment for the year 1958 59.
By his order dated August 16, 1962, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment of the assessee while disposing of the appeal by the assessee.
That assessment was made on March 24, 1961.
Until March 31, 1956, sales tax was being levied on dealers in the State of Madras under the provisions of the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1939 to be hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act .
As against that order, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes went up in revision to the High Court.
Under the 1959 Act, the procedure was simplified to some extent.
Even as regards the time within which the enhancement of assessment can be made the change excepting in exceptional cases is in favour of the assessees.
2186 of 1968.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner who primarily took over the quasi judicial functions of the Commercial Tax Officer was companyferred with power number only to companyfirm, vary or annual the assessment but also the power to enhance the assessment.
The order or assessment was passed on December 15, 1956.
Hence the changes effected by the 1959 Act in the machinery provisions do number touch the substance of the matter.
The High Court allowed the revision petition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Madras.
Not being satisfied with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
