STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THE MAHALAKSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD .

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 03-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. SRINIVASAN, U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_., 
=---- -" 
> 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
THE MAHALAKSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD . 
... 
FEBRUARY 3, 1999 
). 
Ir 
(M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 : Sections 32 and 38. 
" 
Sales Tax-Revision-Assessee-Assessment of sales tax-Correctness 
of assessment questioned by invoking suo motu powers of Deputy Commis- c 
sioner under Section 32--Dismissal of petition in limine-Writ filed by asses-
see-High Court directing that Deputy Commissioner should entertain 
revision and decide it on merits-On remand Deputy Commissioner again 
dismissed the petition on merits-Appeal preferred by assessee before 
-~ 
Tribunal allowed-Revision-Contentions raised by assessee---R.ejection by D 
Hiqh Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, Section 32(2) shows that 
the time limit prescribed does not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from 
passing an order on an application filed before him under Section 32 within 
the period mentioned in the sub-section-Section itself contemplates a 
revision being filed when there was no appeal before the appellate 
E 
authority-The mere fact that the assessee did not invoke the jurisdiction of 
rhe appellate authority will not prevent him from invoking the jurisdiction 
under Section 32 of the Deputy Commissioner--Section 38 is limited to an 
erroneous decision of the Tribunal on any question of law and the failure to 
-
decide a question of law-In this case, the Tribunal's decision is based upon 
the facts of the case and the application of the law as laid down by this 
F 
Court-Hence, there was no erroneous decision on a question of law or failure 
to decide a question of law. 
K.G. Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial 
,'"-
' 
Taxes, Madras Division, Madras, (1966) 17 STC 473, referred to. 
G 
,. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2281 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.77 of the Madras High 
Court in T.C. No. 472 of 1974. 
H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
"" -.
A 
V. Krishnamurthy, V. Ramasubramanain and T. Harish Kumar for 
~
the Appellant. 
Dhruv Mehta (A.C.) Fazlin Anam for the Respondent. 
(
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
• 
B 
.. 
The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The respon-
dent-assessee was assessed to sales tax by the Assessment Officer. After 
some time, he invoked the suo motu powers of the Deputy Commissioner 
under Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short "the 
c Act") questioning the correctness of the assessment. The Deputy Commis-
sioner dismissed the petition in limine. The assessee filed a writ petition 
challenging the said order in the High Court. The High Court held that 
the Deputy Commissioner should entertain the revision and decide it on 
its merits. The matter was thus remanded. 
D 
2. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner once again dismissed the 
,,a-
petition on merits. The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal which went 
into the merits and found that the assessee's contention was correct. 
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The said judgment of the Tribunal 
was challenged by the appellant in revision under the Act. 
E 
3. In the revision petition, following three contentions were urged : 
(1) that the time limit of four years for exercising the suo motu powers of 
the Deputy Commissioner under Section 32 had expired by the time he 
passed his order on 19th February, 1968, and the order of assessment could 
not be revised at that stage; (2) that the assessee not having filed an appeal 
F against the order of assessment could not invoke the revisional jurisdiction 
of the Deputy Commissioner; and (3) that as the exemption of the sales 
from tax was already available under the Jaw and the assessee having shown 
the amount of turnover in its return and got the same assessed without 
protest could not later contest the liability and invoke the jurisdiction under 
G 
Section 32. All the three contentions were rejected by the High Court and 
the appellant is before us in this appeal. 
,_....,. 
.. 
4. In our opinion, none of the contentions has any merit. Section 
32(2) prescribes three conditions for the Deputy Commissioner to pass an 
order under sub-section (1) of the said Section - (a) the time for appeal 
H against the order had expired; (b) the order had not been made the subject 
.... 
STATE v. MAHALAKSHMITEXTILEMILLSLTD. [SHAH,J.] 
373 
--1 
of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissi

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