D M RANADE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS purports to be an appeal against a five-word "order" of the Sales Tax Commissioner : "Your request cannot be granted". This was the reply that the appellants, who separately own each a printing concern at Amravati, got to a representation which they had jointly made to the Commissioner on 15th November, 1949. In this representation, they raised certain questions regarding their liability to be registered as dealers, recapitulating their efforts to obtain a decision on this question, ever since the commencement of the Act. It has been suggested that this was an application made under Section 19 of the Act. There is no specific mention of this section in the representation, but the Commissioner's record shows that at the hearing granted to the appellants' counsel, the latter did urge that it should be so treated. Reading the representation as a whole, we see no objection to accepting the suggestion made. To understand the "order" passed or the reply given by the Commissioner, we have once again to turn to his record. In arguing the case of the appellants before the Commissioner, their learned counsel, who has represented them in the proceedings before the Board also, made a final request that "in view of the previous decision the two applicants should not be required to pay the tax for the period between 21st July, 1947, and 12th September, 1948". It is this request that was turned down by the Commissioner in his "order" against which this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE first question that arises is whether an appeal lies against any "order" passed by the Commissioner in proceedings before him under Section 19 of the Act. Section 19, which has been deleted by a recent amendment, read as follows :-

(3.) IN the result, the appeal so-called is dismissed.