a of sub s. 1 of s. 55 of the Act to the Assistant Commissioner.
By a companymon order dated 29th September, 1973 the Assistant Commissioner reduced the quantum of the turnover and, companysequently, the tax liability to Rs.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12th September 1975 rejecting its preliminary objection and also against the order passed by the Tribunal on 27th October, 1977 dismissing his appeals, as well as the numberices issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 24th April, 1974 in the purported exercise of his revisional power.
During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur issued two numberices to the appellant on 24th April, 1974 requiring it to show cause why the appellate orders dated 29th September, 1973 passed by the Assistant Commissioner should number be revised under s. 57 of the Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 22nd/23rd June/5th July 1978 of the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
16,447.33 and penalty of Rs.
37,572.26.
At the same time, the Tribunal adjourned the two second appeals filed by the appellant against the appellate orders dated 29th September, 1973 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
S. Desai, P.H. Parekh, C.B. Singh, B.L. Verma Miss Caprihan for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
81,745.71 and levied a penalty of Rs.
H. Dhebar M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The appellant objected to the exercise of revisional power by the Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal.
The High Court turned down the plea by its order dated 5th July, 1978, observing that it was always open to the Commissioner to interfere in revision with an order prejudicial to the Revenue numberwithstanding that such order may be already under appeal before the Tribunal.
73,198.62 and a penalty of Rs.
36,197.64.
On the same date, another assessment order was made for the first six months of the year 1972, where again on the basis of an estimate the Sales Tax Officer companyputed the tax Rs.
5,572.26 for the second period.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave raises the important question whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can revise under cl.
a of sub s. 1 of s. 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner when the assessees second appeal against that order is pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal.
The appellant is a partnership firm, carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling vegetable The Sales Tax Officer estimated the turnover for the calendar year 1971 and made an order dated 26th March, 1973 levying Sales Tax at Rs.
11,745.71 for the first period and a tax liability of Rs.
Not fully satisfied by the relief granted, the appellant proceeded in second appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal on 8th December, 1973.
30,494.67 and the penalty to Rs.
Ltd. An assessment order under the Bombay Sales Tax Act is appealable under s.55 of the Act, and we may mention only that when the order is made by the Sales Tax Officer an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner, if the order is made by the Assistant Commissioner an appeal goes to the Commissioner and if it has been made by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Additional Commissioner an appeal lies before the Tribunal.
The only point pressed by the appellant before the High Court was that the Commissioner of Sales Tax companyld number exercise his revisional power against the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner when a second appeal against that order was pending before the Tribunal.
1968 of 1978.
238 of 1978.
Against the order of rejection the appellant filed two appeals before the Tribunal, and by its order dated 27th October, 1977 the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
Against the assessment and penalty orders for the two periods, the appellant appealed under cl.
On 12th September, 1975 the Deputy Commissioner rejected the objection.
The two assessment orders were apparently made under s.33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
