Parameswara Cotton Mills vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad

K. Bhaskaran, C.J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent.

When the Deputy Commissioner passed an order in May, 1983, setting aside the assessment levying sales tax on multi-point, the settled legal position is that it is liable to tax at single point. That order has been revised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in October, 1986, holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision at the instance of the assessee, and that his jurisdiction was confined to cases where he entertained it suo motu in the interests of the Revenue. This position is evidently wrong in view of the decision in The Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Raj Brothers Agencies, .

It was contended by the learned Government Pleader that in view of the amendment to the relevant provision, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to revise only where the assessment order is found to be prejudicial to the Revenue, the order passed by the Commissioner impugned in the appeal could be sustained. We find no force in this contention. Admittedly the amendment came into force only in July, 1985, whereas the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, revised by the Commissioner, was in May, 1983, when the unamended provisions were applicable to the case. It is not the case that the amended provision has any retrospective effect. In this view, in setting aside or revising the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the sole ground that he had no power in that behalf, the Commissioner has acted illegally and without proper application of mind in regard to the real legal position. In that view we allow the appeal quashing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200.

Appeal allowed.