ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. KANAK BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications under sec. 15 (3a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") are made to this Court for requiring the Board of Revenue to refer an identical question, for different assessment periods, for an answer. We are disposing them together. Application No. 106/72: -M/s Kanak Brothers, Mehta Market, Jodhpur, is a registered dealer under the Act and carries on the business of sale of confectionery, biscuits, etc. in Mehta Market, Jodhpur. It is a registered partnership. For the accounting period between 1-4-62 to 31-3-63 the dealer was assessed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jodhpur. The dealer preferred an appeal and the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Udaipur by its order dated 25-7-1966 aceepted the appeal holding that the articles sold by the assessee were not eatables as defined in the higher rate classification but were chargeable at general rate. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the assessment of the Commercial Taxes Officer was modified. Dissatisfied the State of Rajasthan preferred a revision-application before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which by its order dated 29th January, 1971 affirmed the finding of the appellate court and dismissed the revision-application of the State. On 24-6-71 the Assessing Authority, namely, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, ward IV, Jodhpur, made an application before the Revenue Board under sec. 15 of the Act and prayed that the question of law which arose in the case, namely, "whether the turnover of Rs. 465,63 between 10-12-1962 to 1-3-63 and the turnover of Rs. 2,288-35 between 2-3-63 to 31-3-63 is taxable at 7 per cent and 10 per cent respectively or this whole is taxable at the general rate ?" be referred to this Court for answer.

(2.) THE learned Additional Advocate General has stated at the Bar that having heard nothing from the Board of Revenue the Assessing Authority made an application on 11th January, 1972 asking for certified copies of (a) the application for making a reference and (b) the order passed thereon, and it was on the 20th of April, 1972 that the Assessing Authority received the certified copy of the order of the Board dated 18-2-72 to the effect that as the application for reference had not been disposed of in 180 days, it may be filed. An application was presented to this Court under sec. 15 (3a) of the Act requesting that we may require the Board of Revenue to refer the question of law as already indicated. Application No. 107/72 : - THE same dealer as in Sales-tax Reference Application No. 106 of 1972 was taxed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jodhpur, for the period between 1-4-63 to 31-3-64 by way of re-assessment at the higher rate. It preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) on 28-10-1968. Dis-satisfied the assessee preferred a revision application before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan and the contention of the assessee was accepted that turn-over of the assessee should be charged at the general rate and not at the higher rate. This was by the order of the Revenue Board dated 29-1-1971. THE Assessing Authority feeling dis-satisfied made an application on 24-6-1971 praying that the question of law, which arose in the circumstances of the case, may be referred to this Court for opinion. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General at the Bar that not having been heard from the Board of Revenue an application for the certified copies of (a) the application for making a reference and (b) the order, if any, thereon, was made on 11-1-1972. On 20-4-1972 the Assessing Authority was furnished with a certified copy of order dated 18-2-1972 wherein the Board of Revenue observed that because it failed to make an order within 180 days the papers be filed. THE Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Cirlce A, Jodhpur, made an application in this Court under sec. 15 (3a) on 29-4-1972 praying that the question "whether the turn-over of Rs. 70,452 is taxable at 10% or at general rate ?" the Board of Revenue may be required to refer to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General at the end of the arguments sought time to file an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is indeed a belated request to infuse life into a belated application and we decline to entertain it.