RAHUL ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 49 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 for determination of certain disputed questions. 28th July, 1998 was a date appointed for hearing. Adjournment was prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. It was allowed but subject to payment of Rs. 200 by way of costs. THE petitioner has come up invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the order imposing the costs on the ground that the Commissioner of Sales Tax (hereinafter called "the CST", for short) does not have jurisdiction to impose adjournment cost as the law which has constituted the authority of CST, does not confer him with the power to do so.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sales tax authorities appointed under,delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter "the Act", for short) are not courts. THE provisions of CPC do not in terms apply to them except to the extent to which they have been specifically made applicable. A sales tax authority may not dismiss a case in default but must decide it on the merits; it does not have an inherent power to review its own order; and so also it cannot also impose adjournment cost. It was also submitted that the sales tax authorities are treating the parties before them with discrimination; though the adjournment costs are imposed on the assessee but if adjournment be occasioned on account of a prayer made on behalf of the Department/revenue, no adjournment costs are imposed.