Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) vs St. Antony''s Guild

K.S. Paripoornan, J.—These three tax revision cases are filed by the Revenue. The same assessee is the respondent in all these revisions. The respondent-assessee was provisionally assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the months of May, June and July, 1984. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the assessments were confirmed. In the second appeals filed by the assessee, the Revenue took up the plea that the appeals were incompetent. The assessee took up the plea that the assessments were made without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to state its objections. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to put forth its objections and so the assessments are bad in law. Regarding the non-maintainability of the appeals, the Appellate Tribunal held that on a perusal of Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, read with Section 39 and Section 2(xvi-a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Regulation 43 and Regulation 4(f) of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966 and also the Memorandum of Association of the Society, the director of the society was competent to authorise any person to file the appeal, and in this case such an authorisation exists. The Tribunal also adverted to the fact that the very same person who filed the second appeals had filed the appeals before the first appellate authority and the State did not take up any objection regarding the non-maintainability of the first appeals. On these grounds, the plea of the Revenue that the appeals are not maintainable was found against. The Revenue has come up in revisions against the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 30, 1985.

We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. T. Karunakaran Nambiar. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that in the instant case the director of the society has authorised the manager to file the second appeals and he is competent to do so. Such an appeal is maintainable. Moreover, as rightly observed by the Appellate Tribunal, this plea was not taken up by the Revenue before the first appellate authority. On this ground as well, we hold that it is not open to the Revenue to raise this objection at the second appellate stage. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law.

There is no merit in these three tax revision cases. We dismiss them in limine.