BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS versus M/S. RAJ BROTHERS AGENCIES ETC.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 06-02-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

492 
BOARD OF REVENUE, MADRAS 
v. 
M/S. RAJ BROTHERS AGENCIES ETC. 
February 6, 1973 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Madras General Sales Tax A.ct 1959-S. 34(1)-Meaning of Ifie ll'ords 
"Subject of an cippepl to the appellate .Tribunal"-Whetlter an appeal 
against a time-barred order can be considered as an order lV/iich :!rad 
been made the subject of an appeal. 
The respondent was assessed to Sales Tax during the assessment 
years 1960-61 and 1961·62. Against the said orders of assessment, the' 
respondent went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner., 
who dismissed the appeals. 
011 a second appeal 
to 
the 
Sales 
Tax 
Appellate Tribunal, these appeals were also dismissed as being 
time 
barred. Thereafter, the assessee moved the Board of Revenue under 
s. 34(1) of the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the 
assessmenil 
orders. 
The Board came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction. 
to entertain those petitions. On a writ petition, the High Court held 
that the Board has jurisdiction to cntcrtahl those appeals aod therefore, 
issued a writ of mandamus to the Boa'rd, to entertain the .revision peti· 
tions and to consider them on merits. The State against that decision, 
has come up in appeal before this Court. 
The main question in these appeals was for determination of the true 
scope of s. 34. 
Section 34(1) gives power to the Board of Revenuo 
suo 1noto to call for and examine an order passea- by the 
appropriate 
authorities under some of the provisions df the Act. Section 34(2) pro· 
vides that the Board of Revenue shall not pass any 
order under 
sub· 
section (I), if the time for appeal against that order has not expired cor 
that the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate 
Tribunal, or of a revision before the High Court, or that n1ore than 4 
years have expired after the passing of the order. 
The question for consideration was whether an appeal against an ord4:r 
which was dismissed as time barred can be considered as an order ~·hich 
had been made the subject of an appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The sCope of s. 34 came up for consideration before the 
Madras High Court in Erode Yarn Stores v. State of .Madras in which it 
was held by the High Court of Madras that before the jurisdiction of the 
Board to exercise its power under s. 34 is taken away, the appeal filed 
before the Tribunal must have been an 
effective appeal, 
and that an 
appeal which was dismissed on the ground of limitation, is not a'1 effec-
tive appeal. 
That decision has stood the test of time and till no\\· it is 
good law. 
After that decision of the High Cour~ the Act has been sub· 
jected to several amendments, the Legislature not thought fit 
to amend 
s. 34. Therefore, it would. not be proper to upset that decision at this 
late stage and disturb the settled position in law. If the State wants to 
change the law, it is open to it to move the Legislature for making the 
necessary amendments. 
[49,B-EJ 
Erodt Yarn Storts v. State of Madras, 14 S.T.C .. 734, referred to. 
(ii) The second contention of the appellant that the assessc'e had no 
right to· invoke the jurisdiction of the Board to exercise its 
revision al 
A 
JI 
c 
D 
E 
F' 
G 
H 
REVENUE BOARD v. RAJ BROS. (Hegde, J.) 
493 
A 
power has also no force. The power is conferred on the Board to remedy 
an injustice. 
It is open to an a&SCMee or the revenue to bring to the 
notice of the Board any error made by the subordinate authorities. It is 
up to the Board to consider whether the case is fit case for exercising its 
revisional jurisdiction. If the Board had gone into the case and come to 
the conclusion that there was no justification for exercising its jurisdic-
tion under s. 34, then in absence of any vitiating circumstances, the High 
B 
Court would not interfere with the discretion of the Board. [49-5E·G] 
(iii) In the present case, the decision of the Board was vitiated by an 
error apparent on the face of the record. The Board had refused 
to 
exercise its jurisdiction under an erroneous view that the assessee's appeal 
was dismissed and therefore, it was not competent to entertain the peti-
tion. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering 
with that decision. 
[4950-H] 
C 
Mis. Melara1n & Sons v. The Co1n1nissioner of Inco1ne 4 tax, Punjab, 
[1956] S.C.R. 1966, referred to. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·n 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 492 to 
493 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.