COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER JAIPUR Vs. KAMAL AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the Department against the order dated January 1, 1973 passed by Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in a special appeal against the order dated September 16, 1970 passed by a Single Bench of the Board of Revenue in a revision.

(2.) THE assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Authority disallowing certain deductions and imposing a penalty of Rs. 13,000/- under section 16 (l) (c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for late submission of the return for the period 1961-62. THE Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the claim for deductions as well as penalty by order dated January 23, 1967 and reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 13,000/-to Rs. 3,000/ -. THE Department alone filed a revision to the Board of Revenue under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act on May 3,1968. THE assessee did not prefer any revision as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act and accepted the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). However, in the revision filed by the Department before the Board of Revenue, the assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the imposition of penalty even to the extent of Rs. 3000/ -. A Single Bench of the Board of Revenue dismissed the Department's revision as well as the cross-objection therein of the assessee. THE assessee then preferred a special appeal under Section 14 (4a) of the Act to a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the impugned order passed on January 1, 1973. It has been held that the imposition of any penalty was illegal and, therefore, even the penalty of Rs. 3,000/- upheld on appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against which no grievance was made by the assessee by filing a revision under Section 14 (2) has been set aside. Hence this revision by the Department.

(3.) FROM the above discussion it follows that the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue misconstrued sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act to hold that a cross objection filed in the Departments revision preferred thereunder was tenable for granting relief to the assessee who had failed to avail the right of revision available to it under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act.