SANTOSHI TEL UTPADAK KENDRA versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 24-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
-
97 
A 
SANTOSHI TEL UTPADAK KENDRA 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX 
July 24, 1981. 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.) 
Bon1bay Sales Tax Act 1959, S. 51 (/) (a)-Scope of-Assess1nent order by 
Sales Tax Officer-Assessee's first appeal before Assistant Commissioner disposed 
of-Assessee's second appeal before Sales Tax Tribunal pending-Conu11issioner 
of Sales Tax whether competent to revise the appellate order of Assistant Com~ 
missioner. 
The appellant, a partnership firn1, was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, who 
estimated the turnover for the Calendar year 1971, and for the first six months of 
the year 1972 and made two orders of assessment dated 26 i\.1arch 1973 under 
section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 levying Sales Tax and penalty. 
Against the assessment and penalty orders for the two periods, the appellant 
appealed under clause .(a) 
of 
sub-section (1) of section 55 of the Act to 
the Assistant Commissioner. 
By a common order dated 29th September, 1973 
the Assistant Commissioner reduced the quantum of the turnover and, conse. 
quently, the tax liability for each of the periods. Not fully satisfied by the relief 
granted, the appellant proceeded in second appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal on 
8th December, 1973. During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, 
the Deputy Commissioner, issued two notices to the appellant on 24th April, 
1974 requiring it to show cause why the appellate orders dated 29th September, 
1973 passed by the Assistant Co1nmissioner should not be revised under section 
57 of the Act. The appellant objected to the exercise of revisional power by the 
Deputy Cornn1issioner during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal. 
On 12th September 1975 the Deputy Commissioner rejected the objection. 
Against the order of rejection the appeUant filed two appeals before the Tribunal, 
and by its order da1ed 27th October, 1977 the Tribunal dis1nissed the appeals. 
The Tribunal took the view that its deciding those appeals would result in 
nullifying the revisional power vested in the Deputy Commissioner. The two 
second appeals filed by the appellant against the appeliate orders dated 19th 
September, 1973 passed by the Assistant Commissioner were adjourned. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court 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 notices issued by the Deputy Con1mis~ioner 
on 24th April, 1974 in the purported exercise of his revisional power., contending 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
tbat the Commissioner of Sales Tax could not exercise his revisional power 
fj 
against the appeallate orde1 of the Assistant Comn1issioner when a second 
appeal against that order was pending before the Tribunal. 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] I S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court rejected the appellant's contention observing that as the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
statute did not provide any other forum or jurisdiction for protecting the 
interests of the Revenue, it was always open to the Commissioner to interfere in 
revision with an order prejudicial to the Revenue notwithstanding that such 
order may be already under appeal before the Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: l. It is not open to the Com1nissioner to invoke bis power under 
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of sec~ion 57 and summon the record of an order over 
which the Tribunal has already assumed appellate jurisdiction. 
The subordinate 
status of the Commifsioner precludes that. [102 G] 
2. 
An assessment order 
11nder 
the 
Bombay Sales 
Tax 
Act is 
appealable under section 55 of the Act. When the order is made by the Sales 
Tax Officer an appeal goes 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 Con1missioner or Deputy Cornmissioner or Additional 
Commissioner an appeal lies before the Tribunal. Sub-section (2) or section 55 
provides for a second appeal against the appellate order of the Assistant Com-
missioner. The second appeal lies at the option or the appellant to the Com-
missioner or the Tribunal. The Tribunal exercises appellate jurisdiction by way 
of second appeal in respect of an assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer. 
It also exercises by way of first appeal, appellate jurisdiction over an as

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