1960 (9) TMI 90 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an order beyond the period of limitation prescribed by an amended statute.
2. Applicability of amended section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act to orders passed before the amendment came into force.
3. Determination of whether the right of revision is a substantive right or a procedural matter.
4. Impact of vested rights on the application of amended laws.

Detailed Analysis:

Authority of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to Revise an Order Beyond the Period of Limitation Prescribed by an Amended Statute:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had the authority to revise the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax dated 8th August 1949, given that the revision order was passed on 11th August 1954, which is more than four years after the original order. The assessee argued that the period of limitation prescribed by section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Bihar Finance Act of 1951, rendered the Commissioner's order illegal. However, the court held that the amended section 24(4) did not apply to orders passed before the amendment came into force, thus validating the Commissioner's revision order.

Applicability of Amended Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act to Orders Passed Before the Amendment Came Into Force:
The court examined whether the amended section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act could apply retrospectively to orders passed before the amendment. The court ruled that the amendment did not apply to the present case because the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax was made on 8th August 1949, prior to the amendment. The court emphasized that the vested right of the Commissioner to revise the assessment could not be taken away by the Amendment Act of 1951 unless explicitly stated.

Determination of Whether the Right of Revision is a Substantive Right or a Procedural Matter:
The court opined that the right of the Commissioner to revise the assessment is a substantive right, not merely a procedural matter. This right vested in the Commissioner on the date when the proceedings were initiated, which in this case was no later than the time of assessment on 8th August 1949. The court cited multiple precedents to support the view that vested rights cannot be impaired by subsequent amendments unless clearly intended by the legislature.

Impact of Vested Rights on the Application of Amended Laws:
The court referred to several legal precedents to illustrate that an intention to impair vested rights cannot be presumed unless clearly manifested. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Messrs Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that amendments imposing new conditions on rights (such as the right of appeal) do not apply to proceedings commenced before the amendment. The court also referenced decisions from the Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay High Courts, which consistently held that vested rights, including rights of appeal and revision, are substantive and cannot be retroactively affected by amendments.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had the authority to revise the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax dated 8th August 1949, and the amended section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act did not apply to this case. The period of limitation prescribed by the amended Act did not bar the Commissioner's order of revision. The question of law was answered against the assessee and in favor of the State of Bihar, with the assessee required to pay the costs of the reference.