DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs. A ABDUL SHUKOOR AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-assessees were dealers in hides and skins. THEy were unlicensed dealers. In the view that unlicensed dealers were not liable to pay sales tax, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambur, held that the entire turnover of Rs. 5,17,337. 36 was exempt from taxation and made an order accordingly on 13th June, 1958. Subsequent to this order, the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this court held that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins are liable to be taxed at multi-point on their purchase turnover. THE Deputy Commissioner, therefore, invoking his powers under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), issued a notice to the assessees calling upon them to show cause as to why the taxable turnover should not be revised including the entire turnover exempt as taxable. After a consideration of the objections filed by the assessees, by an order dated 3rd July, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore, refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 5,17,337. 36. THE assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal under section 36 of the Act. Though the Tribunal confirmed the view that the turnover of unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were not exempt and that, therefore, liable to pay sales tax, allowed the assessees to raise a new contention for the first time before the Tribunal that some of the transactions were export sales or sales in the course of export and, therefore, not liable to sales tax under the Act. Since the consideration of this question involved permitting the assessees to adduce further evidence and a consideration of the same on merits, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to consider the question of sales in the course of export. This order of the Tribunal was made on 24th July, 1963. While the proceedings were at this stage, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Ambur, purported to consider the issue by an order dated 3rd June, 1966, and held that the transactions were not liable to be taxed. THE Deputy Commissioner considered that this order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction as the matter was not remanded to the Joint Commercial Tax Officer by the Tribunal. Holding that the Joint Commercial Tax Officer's order dated 3rd June, 1966, was without jurisdiction and null and void, the Deputy Commissioner set aside that order by his order dated 14th December, 1966; thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to consider the case in pursuance of the Tribunal's order of remand. After issuing notice to the assessees and hearing them, by an order dated 3rd January, 1967, the Deputy Commissioner held in the remanded proceedings that none of the turnover was in the course of export and that the entire turnover was therefore taxable. THE assessees preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

(2.) THE main contention of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the order dated 3rd January, 1967, of the Deputy Commissioner was made beyond the period prescribed under section 32 (2) and that, therefore, it is illegal. This point found favour with the Tribunal. THE State has filed this revision petition.