IMPORTANT POINT
The Board of Revenue functioning under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, cannot revise in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is against the Revenue when the other part of this very order against the assessee is made subject matter of an appeal before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal functioning under the same Act.

Headnote:SALES TAX-Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959-Sections 34 and 36-Special Powers of Board of Revenue-Order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Appeal by assessee who is aggrieved by only a part of such order-Whether Board of Revenue can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction against the remaining part of that very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is in favour of assessee and against Revenue ?-(No)-Such an order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is pending scrutiny before Appellate Tribunal will go out of ken of revisional jurisdiction.
Held that once the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is brought on the anvil of scrutiny of the Appellate Tribunal by the dissatisfied assessee by filing appeal against the adverse part of that order, the entire order becomes open for scrutiny of the Appellate Tribunal and the entire controversy qua that other vis-a-vis both the contesting parties, namely, the assessee on the one hand and the Revenue on the other comes under the focus of scrutiny of the Tribunal. Once the entire appellate order being partly in favour and partly against the assessee becomes subject of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, the bar of Section 34(2)(b) against the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue would operate in its full swing and such an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is pending scrutiny before the Appellate Tribunal will go out of the ken of revisional jurisdiction conferred on the Board of Revenue under Section 34. We entirely concur with the view of the High Court that piecemeal scrutiny of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the dissatisfied assessee and partly by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers against other part of the same order in favour of the assessee is contra-indicated by the aforesaid relevant provisions of the act. It must, therefore, by held that once the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner is made subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal by the assessee who is aggrieved by only a part of such order the Board of Revenue cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the remaining part of that very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is in favour of the assessee the against the Revenue. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-The aforesaid three civil appeals by special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India filed by the common appellant State of Tamil Nadu and the two special leave petitions also moved by the same State of Tamil Nadu and which are ordered to be tagged with the aforesaid civil appeals, raise a common question for our consideration. The common appellant, State of Tamil Nadu, in all these proceedings, seeks to challenge identical decisions rendered by different Division Benches of the Madras High Court impugned in Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No. 4550 of 1984 as well as in the companion special leave petitions; while in Civil Appeal No. 3442 of 1983 the State of Tamil Nadu seeks to challenge the decision of Full Bench of the same High Court concurring with the decisions of the Division Benches of the High Court taking the same view. The short question which is posed for our consideration by the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu in these proceedings is as to whether the Board of Revenue functioning under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) can revise in exercise of its sou motu revisional jurisdiction that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is against the Revenue when the other part of this very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessee is made subject-matter of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal functioning under the same Act. In the impugned judgments the High Court has taken the view that once the assessee has carried the matter in appeal being aggrieved by that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is against him, the entire order comes within the purview of the Appellate Tribunal and under these circumstances the Board of Revenue will have no jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional powers against the remaining part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appellant State disputes the aforesaid conclusion reached by the High Court on the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the High Court was in error when it took the view the once the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is challenged in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal by the assessee who is aggrieved by a part of the order against him the other part of the order which is in favour of the assessee and which is obviously not the subject-matter of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal could not be examined by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers with a view to seeing whether the order against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee was correct in law or not. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee had no occasion to challenge that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was in his favour and, therefore, the Tribunal was not seized of any inquiry regarding the validity of that part of the order. That part of the order, therefore, was outside the ken of the scrutiny of the Tribunal and consequently it could not be said that it was subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently the Board had ample power under Section 34 of the Act to examine the correctness of that part of the order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing in one of these matters, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court was justified in construing the sweep of Sections 34 and 36 of the Act which dealt with special powers of the Board of Revenue on the one hand and powers of the Appellate Tribunal on the other and in taking the view that once appeal is taken by the assessee before the Tribunal challenging that part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was against him the Tribunal would be seized o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document