LexSTATE OF MADRAS versus LATEEF HAMID & CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c D E F G H STATE OF MADRAS v. LATEEF HAMID & CO. September 2, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N, GROVER, JJ.] 577 Madras General Sales Tax Act 1 of 1959 s. 31-Sect'ion conferring power on ~4ppeilate Assistant Commissioner to enhance assessnzent- Power to enhance assessrnent under Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 exercisable by Co1nmercial Tax Officer-Appellate Assistant Commissioner hearing appeal under s. 31 of 1959 Act whether can exercise power of enhancement in respect of assess1nent year 1958~59 which lVas governed by 1939 Act-Whether any right or privilege of assessee under 1939 Act affected if polver of enhancement exercised by Appellate Assistant Conz- missioner under s. 31 of 1959 Act. The appellant was a dealer in hides and skins at Madras. Up to March 31, 1959 sales tax on dealers in the State of Madras was leviable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The appellant's turnover for the assessment year 1958-59 thus stood charged with liability to pay tax as leviable under the 1939 Act The 1939 Act was repealed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which came into force on April 1, 1959. The appellant was assessed for the year 1958-59 on March 24, 1961. By an order dated August 16, 1962 the Appellate Assistant Com- missioner while disposing of the appeal against the said assessment order enhanced the assessment undt!r power conferred on him by s. 31 of the 1959 Act. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to enhance the assess- ment. The High Court in revision held that since under the 1939 Act the appellate authority while exercising its appellate po'>vers had no power to enhance the assessment and the said immunity or protection was a vested right in the assessee, the same n<?t having been taken away either cx1Jrcssly or by necessary implication by the 1959 Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not have enhanc:ed the assessment. It further held that the immunity or protection was a right or privilege protected by s. 61 (I) of the 1959 Act as amended in 1963, which an1cnd.1nent was retrospective in its operation. In appeal to this Court by certificate~ HELD: (i) In the matter of assessment the purpose of the 1939 a. well as the 1959 Act is identical. That purpose was and is to see that neither ihe assessee is over assessed nor the State is deprh·cd of the Revenue to which it is entitled. Under the 1939 Act an aggrieved assessee could first appeal to the Appellate Authority and then to the Tribunal. Further he could on questions of law go up in revision to the High Court. Rule 13(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules. 1939 prescrib~d that subject to the provision.s of s, 11 any person aggriev- ed by any ong1nal o·rder passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer may appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer of the District. Thus the Commercial Tax Officer had both the powers of the appellate authorit1 as well as the special powers conferred on him under s, 12(1) of the 1939 Act. By the exercise of those two powers he could have confirmecJ, altered, amended or enhanced the assessment made. Under the 1959 Act !he_ Appellate. Assistant Commission~r who primarily took .over the quasi- JUd1cial funct10ns of the Commercial Tax Officer was conferred with power not only to confirm, vary, or annul the asspssme.it but also the po\vcr to enhance the assessment. The power conferred on him under 3-USup.C,1.172 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] l S.C.R. s. 31 of the 1959 Act combines to an extent both the appellate power as well as the special power the Commercial Tax Officer had under s. 11 and s. 12(1) of the 1939 Act. Hence the changes effected by the 1959 Act in the machinery sections do not touch the substance of the matter. The 1959 A.:t merely simplified the procedure without touching the Substance <>f the right of the parties. [582C-583A] No assessee has any vested right in 'the procedure p'rescribed under the 1939 Act. So long as the new procedure laid down in the 1959 Act does not interfere with any of his vested rights, an assessee has no right to claim that his case must be dealt with under the provisions of the re· pealed Act. It is well settled that the new procedure prescribed by law _governs all pending cases. The assessee in the present case filed its appeal under s. 31 of the 1959 Act and not under s. 11 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.