SISCO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") relates to the assessment year 1985-86. It is directed against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (hereinafter described as "the Tribunal") dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner-firm under section 39 of the act.

(2.) BY the assessment order dated March 30, 1989, the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) II, Special Circle, Ernakulam, who is the assessing authority in this case, determined the taxable turnover of the petitioner-firm for the year 1985-86 at Rs. 22,72,140. 50 as against the turnover of Rs. 20,11,470. 50 returned by the firm. Being aggrieved by this assessment, the petitioner-firm filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam (hereinafter described as "the Deputy Commissioner"), under section 34 of the Act. That appeal happened to be decided ex parte. As against the said ex parte order dated July 15, 1991, a further appeal was filed by the petitioner-firm before the Tribunal as T. A. No. 141 of 1992. Notwithstanding the contentions urged by the petitioner-firm the Tribunal dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) IN order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-firm, we find it extremely essential to reproduce the averments contained in annexure A affidavit. It is therefore reproduced below : " I, N. Vittal Rao, B. Com. , F. C. A. , aged 54, son of Sri N. Subba Rao, residing at Sharada Mandir, Cullen Road, Alappuzha solemnly affirm and state as follows : 1. I am a chartered accountant by profession. 2. The appellant had authorised me to represent him before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural INcome-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam, as regards the case S. T. A. No. 196/89. 3. The above case was first posted for hearing on June 13, 1989. I had gone to Ernakulam and had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and represented the case. But the Deputy Commissioner was transferred before the order could be written. 4. Subsequently, the case was re-posted for hearing by the incumbent Deputy Commissioner on July 12, 1989. Against this notice, I had applied for an adjournment as I had to appear other time barring assessment. 5. The case was again re-posted on October 18, 1989. I had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner but the Deputy Commissioner did not take up the appeal. The same was re-posted on November 15, 1989.