Rajagopalan, J.-These are petitions under Article 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in T.R.Cs Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953.

The petitioners are manufacturers of groundnut oil, registered as such under rule 18(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules As dealers liable to pay sales tax under Madras General Sales Tax Act IX of 1939, the petitioners elected to be assessed under rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. Thesee rules provided for a provisional assessment month by nonth on the basis of the returns submitted by the assessee (see rule 15(2) and 15(3) or for provisional assessment on the best judgment basis (see rule 15(4)). The rules also provided for a final assessment after the close of the year (see rule 13(5) and (6)). The petitioners submitted their returns month by month for the first nine months of 1950-51, but the assessing authority, instead of dealing with the return of each month, made a consolidated provisional assessment for nine months. The assessees claimed relief under rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, but that claim was negatived by the assessing authority. On appeal, the Commercial Tax Officer agreed with the assessing authority in rejecting the claim for reduction under rule 18(2), but observed that, as the assessment made by the assessing authority was a provisional one, the petitioners could raise the question again during the final assessment. On further appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 12-A of the General Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal held that a consolidated provisional assessment for nine months was against rules and set aside that assessment. Since by the time the appeal came up before the Tribunal the assessment year was over, the Tribunal directed that proceedings for final assessment be taken. The main question for determination all through was whether the assessees, the petitioners were entitled to deduction they claimed under rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The Tribunal held that they were not and dismissed the appeal. Against that dismissal, the petitioners applied to this Court under section 12-B of the Act to revise the order of the Tribunal.

When T.R.Cs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953 came on for admission, this Court ordered on 5th April, 1954:

“The interpretation placed by the Tribunal in this case on rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules is, in our opinion, correct, and that is the view we took in T.R.Cs. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1954. Following that decision we dismiss these revision cases with costs.”

Earlier, on 25th March, 1954, this Court defined the scope of rule 18(2) in its order in Sri Chandramouleswara Oil Company, Kurnool, In re1 (T.R.C. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1954).

It is the correctness of the order in T.R.Cs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953 that the petitioners seek to challenge by appeal to the Supreme Court.

T.R.C. No. 52 of 1953 satisfies the pecuniary test of article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The tax liability itself in that case, provisional, as well as the anticipated, final assessment, is well over Rs. 20,000. The tax liability is admittedly less than Rs. 20,000 in T.R.C. No. 51 of 1953, but the petitioner seeks to have that consolidated with R.T.C. No. 52 of 1953 for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court.

On behalf of the respondent, the State of Madras, the learned Government Pleader contended that the requirements of article 133(1) were not satisfied because (1) the order of this Court in T.R.Cs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1953 affirmed the order of the Tribunal, and the appeal against the orders of this Court did not involve any substantial question of law, and (2) the order of the Court did not constitute a final order in a civil proceeding within the meaning of article 133(1). We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader, that no substantial question of law is involved in the contemplated appeal t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document