STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BADRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the direction given in D.B. S.T. Case Nos. 81 and 69 of 1966 decided on March 17, 1967, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board') has referred the following question to this Court for answer: Whether after the insertion of Sub -section (3) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act No. 9 of 1965, the revision application pending on 27 -4 -1965 should be disposed of by a single Member or they should be heard or disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Members of the Board of Revenue? We shall notice the facts which are necessary for disposing of theset wo references respondent M/s Badrilal Chaturbhuj is a partnership firm Ft was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the accounting period November 9,1961 to October 28, 1962 by the Commercial Taxes Officer. Pali on August 31, 1963. A penalty was also imposed upon it under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 16 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (No. XXIX of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An appeal was filed by the assessee -respondent, which was rejected on April 22, 1964. A revision application was filed before the Board. At the time of hearing of the revision application, an objection was raised that a single Member of the Board way not competent to hear and decide the revision under Section 14 of the Act as t was amended by Section 9(d) of the Rajasthan Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (No. IX of 1965). The amendment made in Section 14 of the Act with which we are concerned is as follows: (3) Where an application for revion has been made under Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) it shall be heard and disposed of by a bench of not less than two members of the Board of Revenue.

(2.) A single member heard the objection and by his order dated May 27, 1965, held that a single Member of the Board was competent to hear the revision application, which was filed prior the insertion of Sub -section (3) of Section 14, though it was pending when it came into force. An application under Section 15(1) of the A was filed before the Board on August 5, 1965, praying that reference may be made to this Court. This application was not decided within 120 days ft on August 5, 1965. Therefore, that led to tiling of the application under Section 15(3A) of the Act While the revision application was pending before the Board, the sanu learned Member decided the main revision application on August 6. 1965. The Board was again moved under Section 15(1) of the Act to state the case and refer to this Court the same question though it was worded in a different language. The application under Section 15(1) was rejected on July 14, 1966. An application under Section 13(2) was again filed in this Court. It was registered as DBST Case No. 69 of 1961. Both the applications which were filed under Section 15(3A) and 15(2) of the Act were to the same effect. This Court by its order dated March 17, 1967, directed the Board to state the case and refer the question mentioned hereinabove for answer. The statement of case along with the relevant papers were sent by the Board to this Court.

(3.) WE have heard earned Counsel for the applicant. The appeal of the respondent was rejected on April 22, 1964. Thereafter, the revision was filed against the appellate -order dated April 22,1964.