BANGALORE TIMBER SYNDICATE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was assessed under the Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1121 for the years 1948 49 and 1949 50. From the orders of assessment he filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur on 24-9-1958. The appeals were partly allowed. But the petitioner was not satisfied with that; and under S.18 of the Cochin Act, he filed two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its order Ext. P1 dated 2-12-1968, rejected the revision petitions on the ground that it was not a competent authority to hear revisions under S.18 of the Cochin Act. This writ petition has been filed to direct the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the revisions under S.18 of the Cochin Act, to quash the order Ext. P1 of the Board of Revenue, and to direct it to restore the revision petitions and return the same to the petitioner for presenting the same to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to be appointed by the State Government.

(2.) The Cochin Sales Tax Act; 1121 was repealed arid replaced by the Travancore - Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 which came into force on 30-5-1950. S.25 of the Travancore - Cochin Act reads:

(3.) In support of the relief for a writ of mandamus to the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Cochin Act, the petitioner's counsel contends that it can be done under S.25 of the Travancore - Cochin Act; and he relies on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in P.V.M. Koya v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, O.P. 975 of 1960. That is a case in which, under more or less similar circumstances, the learned Judge issued a writ directing the State Government to; appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear and dispose of the revision petitions under S.18 of the Cochin Act; and that decision fully supports the petitioner. But I am unable to follow that decision in view of a later Division Bench decision of this Court in Paramu v. Sales Tax Officer ( 1966 KLJ 728 .) In that case the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax appointed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 from an order of an Appellate Assistant Commissioner made under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. Under the Kerala Act, the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to entertain a revision from any order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner; and therefore the revision was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is not clear from the above decision what exactly was the relief sought for by the petitioner in that case. It was contended there that the right of revision is a vested right, and that the petitioner was entitled to have a revising authority appointed for the purpose of entertaining his revision petition. The contention was rejected by this Court; and in doing so, it is stated: --