State Taxation Tribunal - Rajasthan
Commercial Taxes Officer vs Bachhu Bhai Shanti Bhai And Brothers on 14 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: [1998]111STC140(TRIBUNAL)
JUDGMENT
Milap Chandra Jain, J. (Chairman)
1. In compliance with the order dated September 27, 1983 of the honourable Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, the Revenue Board, Ajmer, by its order dated March 26, 1984, had referred the following four questions to the Rajasthan High Court for answering by it :
1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the making of the partners as parties is necessary as the dissolution of the firm has taken place only at the time of filing of application under Section 14(1) of the RST Act ?
2. Whether the non-mention of the names of the partners is fatal to the case specially when the name of the firm was in existence at the tune of assessment and also at the time of appeal ?
3. Whether the Board of Revenue, under the facts and circumstances of the case, was correct in not allowing the amendment of the application under Section 14(1) of the RST Act, by the assessing authority by adding the names of the partners ?
4. Whether the appearance of the counsel for the non-applicant dissolved firm is not a sufficient notice to the partners for the purpose of hearing and disposing of the revision ?
In pursuance of the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 20 of 1984), this reference was treated as an application for revision. On the establishment of this Tribunal, it stood transferred to it under Section 15, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995.
2. The facts of the case may be summarised thus : The respondent-firm, Bachhu Bhai Shanti Bhai & Bros., Jaipur, was carrying on the business of manufacturing and importing copper wire and rods, Assessment order in respect of Central sales tax was passed on November 25, 1967 imposing tax of Rs. 824 at 6 per cent on the sale of copper wire and rods to the tune of Rs. 13,735.70 holding that these sales were not made to the parties carrying on the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electric power. The dealer-respondent filed appeal and it was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, on March 5, 1970. The assessing authority filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the dealer-respondent that the firm stood dissolved on December 31, 1971, intimation was given to the sales tax authorities on February 17, 1972 and the present revision petition has been filed on October 5, 1972 against the dissolved firm. The Revenue Board allowed this preliminary objection and dismissed the revision petition by its order dated April 18, 1974. An application for making a reference was made but it could not be decided within 180 days. Thereafter, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur was moved for directing the Board of Revenue for making a reference. By its order dated September 27, 1983, the Rajasthan High Court directed the Board of Revenue to refer the aforesaid questions to it.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the department that the Revenue Board has seriously erred to dismiss the revision petition by its order dated April 18, 1974 as, admittedly, Shri J.N. Sharma, Advocate, had put his appearance before the Revenue Board and raised the said preliminary objections and as such it would be deemed that he put his appearance for and on behalf of the ex-partners of the dissolved firm. He further contended that by its order dated January 24, 1994, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed the application of the department for bringing the ex-partners of the said dissolved firm on record and as such the Revenue Board should have allowed the amendment of the revision petition for adding the names of the ex-partners.
4. The learned counsel for the dealer-respondent duly supported the order of the Revenue Board dated April 18, 1974 allowing the said preliminary objection.
5. The matter relates to the assessment year 1965-66 and the disputed tax is to the tune of Rs. 412.07 only. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient to discuss the matter in detail. Under the law, as then stood, there was no column for the name of the opposite party in the prescribed pro forma, form S.T. 9 for an application for revision. Section 14 of the Act contained the provisions for revision. It simply provided that the Board of Revenue may on being moved by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner call for the record of any proceedings and examine it. Sub-section (6) provided that no order under this section be passed without giving the dealer as also the Commissioner or the officer authorised by him a reasonable opportunity of being Heard. Non-impleadment of a dealer was thus not fatal. It was simply necessary to hear him before passing an order under Section 14 of the Act. Notice could be given to him at any stage prior to passing an order.
6. Accordingly, the question Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are answered in the negative and the question No, 3 in the affirmative.