State of Tamil Nadu vs R.K. Herbal (P) Ltd. and Others

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The Tribunal has held that u/s 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the revision to the Tribunal

should be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, referred to therein, within the period computed by taking the date of service of the order of the

Appellate Tribunal on the State''s representative as the starting point.

It has rejected the argument that was presented for the Revenue that the computation of time should begin from the date of service on the

Deputy Commissioner. Section 38 refers to ""...any person who objects to such order of the Deputy Commissioner..."". The Deputy Commissioners

are many. The section does not specify which Deputy Commissioner. It requires that the revision should be preferred by a person who holds a

responsible position in the higher rank of the Deputy Commissioner and that the filing of the revision to the Taxation Special Tribunal is not to be

left merely to the assessing officer, who is on a lower rank. The mention of the Deputy Commissioner in that section, therefore, is not intended to

mandate that the computation of time for the purpose of determining the time within which the revision is to be filed should begin with the date of

service of the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the Deputy Commissioner. The reference to the Deputy Commissioner cannot be regarded as

reference to all the Deputy Commissioners or to any Deputy Commissioner, chosen at random. Admittedly, there are more than a dozen Deputy

Commissioners.

The regulations made by the Appellate Tribunal require that the party to be named in the appeal filed by an assessee is the State of Tamil Nadu.

It is not required to be represented by any particular Deputy Commissioner. The person on whom notice could be served in such an appeal is the

State representative appointed by the State Government to conduct matters before the Appellate Tribunal. The regulations also provide that the

person competent to receive notices on behalf of the Government in matters before it is the State representative. The copies of the orders made by

it are also to be communicated to that State representative.

The State which is the party to the appeal receives notices intended for it through the State representatives and the copies of the orders served

by the Tribunal on such State representative is in effect service on the State of Tamil Nadu. For purposes of filing revisions u/s 38, the State is to

be represented by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the regulations framed by the Appellate Tribunal which also provide for service of copy of

the order on the Deputy Commissioner do not imply that the Deputy Commissioner is at liberty to take the date of service of the copy on him as

the starting point for computation of limitation for the purpose of filing the revision u/s 38.

Time will begin to run from the date on which the copy is served on the State representative. It is for the State representative to co-ordinate with

the concerned Deputy Commissioner and ensure that the revision is filed within the time allowed u/s 38.

This position in law was set out by the Tribunal in the impugned decision rendered by it on 3rd January, 2001, reported in State of Tamil Nadu

v. R.K. Herbals Put. Ltd. [2001] 124 STC 695. That judgment had also been accepted by the Commissioner, who had issued a circular directing

all Deputy Commissioners to co-ordinate with the State representative and ensure that the revisions are filed within the time allowed by law, by

computing the time for filing the revision as commencing from the date on which the copy of the order of the Tribunal is served on the State

representative, before the Appellate Tribunal. The State also issued circulars in which it was stated that it has accepted that order and cautioned

the Deputy Commissioners to co-ordinate with the State representatives in order to ensure that the revisions are filed within the time allowed by

law. Having examined the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal warranting our interference.

We must also refer to an argument made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 36(8) requires that every order passed by the Tribunal

shall be communicated in the manner prescribed to the appellant, the respondent, the authority from whose order the appeal was preferred, the

Deputy Commissioner, if he is not such authority, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was sought to be contended that the Deputy

Commissioner being one of the authorities to whom the order is required to be sent and he being an officer empowered to file the revision u/s 38, is

entitled to compute the period of limitation from the date on which he receives the copy of the order. This argument is not one which can be

accepted. Sub-section (8) of Section 36 requires that the copy of the order to be sent to the respondent. The respondent in the appeal is the State

of Tamil Nadu which receives the notices and orders concerning an appeal through its State representative. The service effected on the said

representative is the service on the respondent. It is that same respondent-State which prefers a revision u/s 38 by acting through the Deputy

Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, is merely an agent of the State and does not have any special status except that he is the

officer who has been identified in the Act as the person who is competent to act on behalf of the State for the purpose of filing the revision.

The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.