Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras vs W.H. Brady and Co. Ltd., Madras

Rajagopalan, J.—The assesses W. H. Brady & Co., Ltd. was assessed to sales-tax on a turnover of Rs. 13,45,564-2-6 for the year 1948-

The rate applicable to this turnover was three pies in the rupee u/s 3(1) . On a sum of Rs. 2,04,303-4-9 included in the sum there was a

liability to pay an additional tax of three pies in the rupee u/s 3(2). The total tax paid was Rs. 24,747-14-10.

In fixing this assessment the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, who assessed the liability of the assesses in the first instance, declined to allow the

deductions claimed by the assesses. There was an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer who confirmed the order of assessment of the Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer. There was a revision to the Board, since the assessment had been completed before Section 12-A of the Act was

enacted. On the formation of the Appellate Tribunal, the revision petition to the Board stood transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, and the

Appellate Tribunal treating it as an appeal disposed it of. The claims made by the assessee with reference to a sum of Rs. 51,354-2-6 representing

the turnover of sales effected outside the state, and the rebate claimed with reference to a turnover of Rs, 3,46,064-8-9 u/s 7 of the Act for

machinery delivered outside the State, were upheld by the tribunal. The correctness of these claims is not disputed at this stage; that is, that had the

applications been properly dealt with by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the first instance, these deductions should have been made in the

turnover is not disputed before us now.

The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal u/s 12-A was incompetent, treatise refusal to

grant deductions and repair would not amount to an order relating to assessment within the meaning of Section 12-A. It is really unnecessary for us

as far as this revision petition is concerned, to go into the precise scope of the expression ""order relating to assessment"" in Section 12-A of the

Act.

We find that it was against an order of assessment passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, that the appeal was preferred under the

provisions of Section 11 of the Act to the Commercial Tax Officer, and it was against the order on appeal of the Commercial Tax Officer, that the

further petition to the Board, which was eventually converted into an appeal u/s 12-A that was preferred. The appeal to the Commercial Tax

Officer, and the further petition which culminated in an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal were really against orders of assessment as such, because

the assessment was finalised by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, in the course of which he negatived certain claims put forward by the

assesses. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal does not appear to have been taken before the Commercial Tax Officer, nor even

before the Appellate Tribunal. Since that is the only ground taken up before us and since that ground is wholly without substance, there is nothing

else except to confirm the order of the Appellate Tribunal, with a direction that full effect be given to it. We dismiss this petition with costs--Rs.

250/-.