STATE OF MADRAS Vs. INDIA COFFEE BOARD BATLAGUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE India Coffee Board, Batlagundu, the petitioner, was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 3, 89, 38, 275 for the assessment year 1949-50. THE Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who ordered the assessment excluded a turnover of Rs. 33, 73, 733 on the ground that this represented sales of coffee exported outside the Indian Union.

(2.) THE petitioner contended that it was not a dealer at all and that it was not liable to be assessed to sales tax. Even the assessment ordered by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was challenged by an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer. That appeal was dismissed on 31st May, 1951. A further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal failed, and the Tribunal affirmed the order of assessment on 24th July, 1952. A revision under section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 to this Court also failed. THE judgment of this Court delivered on 14th April, 1954, was reported in Indian Coffee Board, Batlagundu ] THE State of Madras After the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal preferred to it by the petitioner and during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai, initiated proceedings suo motu under section 12 of the Act to revise the assessment confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer. THE Deputy Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee on 31st March, 1954, to show cause why the assessment should not be revised. THE Deputy Commissioner was of the view, that the turnover of Rs. 33, 73, 733 was not entitled to any exemption, as the assessee did not export the coffee itself but had sold the coffee to other dealers in the State who alone exported that coffee outside the Indian Union. In addition, the Deputy Commissioner found that a turnover of Rs. 3, 03, 187-8-0 was also liable to be taxed as also a further sum of Rs. 4, 733-5-0, which represented sales tax. THE objections of the assessee were overruled, and the Deputy Commissioner revised the assessable turnover for 1949-50 and included these three items also.

(3.) THE State of Madras applied under section 12-B of the Act to revise the order of the Tribunal. THE learned Government Pleader contended that there could be no question of any merger of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer in its entirety in the judgment either of the Appellate Tribunal or that of the High Court. THE learned Government Pleader pointed out that only the assessee could have appealed against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, and that only in so far as the assessment order was against the assessee such an appeal could not be deemed to comprehend that portion of the order of the assessing officer which was in favour of the assessee, for example, the exemption granted to the assessee on the turnover of Rs. 33, 73, 733. THE State itself had no right to appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. THErefore, the learned Government Pleader contended, the only remedy open to the State, when there was an order to the prejudice of the revenue of the State, was for the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under section 12(2) of the Act. THE learned Government Pleader urged that irrespective of the fact, whether there was an appeal by the assessee or not, the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the order of the Commercial Tax Officer in so far as it was to the detriment of the interests of the State.In effect the contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the Act provided for two hirearchies of Tribunals functioning simultaneously to deal with separate parts of an assessment. Whether the Act does provide for it is the question.