DHAMANI ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three separate identical references in each of which the same question of law referred to this Larger Bench for decision is: "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case one single Revision petition was competent or whether five separate revision petitions ought to have been filed. "

(2.) THE point in issue in all these matters is that while the assessing authority passed separate assessment orders for separate years wherefore separate appeals were filed before the appellate authority, he disposed of the separate appeal by a single common appellate order. THEreafter the aggrieved dealers filed a single revision against the aforesaid order from which the question arose whether such a single revision was permissible or whether separate revisions should be filed relating to each assessment order disposed of by the common appellate order. THE learned S. B. and D. B. making the above references have referred to a number of decided cases cited by the contesting parties.

(3.) IT has been strenuously argued by learned Counsel on behalf of the dealers and it has also been mentioned in the referring judgments, that in 1968 RRD 323 a learned D. B. held that a single revision against a common appellate order was competent while in revision No 517/67 Tikam Chand Goel vs. State it was held by another learned D. B. on 16-5 68 that separate revision petitions were necessary in such cases and that the learned Member Shri B. C. Mukerjee was a party to both the said contradictory decisions. IT was further argued before the referring Member or Members as before us that the Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 936 held that when a Division Bench disagrees with the view of a previous Division Bench of the High Court the question should be referred to a Larger Bench. IT is interesting to note however that there is no real contradiction at all between the decisions of the two aforesaid learned D. Bs. of this Board mentioned above. In 1968 R R. D. 323 it has been unequivocally stated that one revision is clearly envisaged against one order but in that case on revision was considered to be proper against one single appellate order even though it had disposed of two assessment orders because the appellate authority had considered the assessment period of two years as if the two years formed one period and he took the case to be one and dealt with it as such. These two D. B. judgments have been fully examined by a learned S. B. in 1971 RRD 21, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced below: - 'i have gone through the two DB rulings. In the D. B. which passed the order dated 16. 5. 68, one of the learned Members was Shri B. C. Mukerjee who had also participated in the earlier Division Bench which passed the order dated 20. 11. 67 (i. e. the judgment reported in 1968 RRD 323 ). In the decision dated 16-5-68 the earlier decision dated 20. 11. 67 was duly considered and distinguished with the following observations: "we have perused the decision taken by another D. B. of this Board on 20th November 1967, in case No. 182 Revision Petition Sales Tax/65/aj mer-M/s Pannalal Kankaria & Sons vs. State of Rajasthan. A similar preliminary objection was raised in that case which was over ruled. But the facts of that case were different. In that case although the assessment period was 1957-58 and 1958-59, the learned Deputy Commissioner treated both the periods as one, with one consolidated return, which was then split up into two. The assessment period in that case and the turnover for the 2 year was treated by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as one. There was only one order and no second, though an identical order was passed and placed on record of the second case Thus the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) treated both the cases as one and dealt with them as such. In the present case the appellate authority has clearly indicated that there are three different appeals but as the grounds of appeals are identical, they will be disponed of by a single order The assessment is also shown separately for each year and a separate though identical impugned order has been placed on each file In view of this, the ruling of the former DB is not applicable to this case. "