1973 (2) TMI 125 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the period of limitation for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment of the court addressed a question of law regarding the interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The case involved an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer against the opponents, which was later revised by the Assistant Commissioner after a period of 5 years. The issue raised was whether the final orders revising the assessment should have been passed within the 5-year limitation period as per the Act. The Tribunal referred the question for determination, focusing on whether the limitation period applies only to calling the record for examination or also includes passing orders based on the examination (para 1).

The legislative history of the Act was discussed to provide context. Initially, there was no limitation on the exercise of revisional powers under earlier Acts. Section 57 was subsequently enacted to address this, initially setting a 2-year limitation period which was later amended to 5 years. The argument was made that the revisional power commences after the Commissioner calls for and examines the record, not just by calling for it. However, the court disagreed, stating that the revisional power includes calling for the record, examining it, and passing orders, and the 5-year limitation period refers to initiating the revision proceeding (para 2).

The judgment highlighted that the purpose of the limitation period is to initiate the revision proceedings, not to complete the entire process within the specified time frame. It was emphasized that the revisional power can be exercised in favor of either the State or the assessee, and requiring the entire process to be completed within 5 years would lead to anomalies and defeat the legislative intent. Referring to precedent cases, the court held that the period of limitation pertains to initiating the proceedings, not passing the final order (para 2).

Based on the interpretation of section 57, the court answered the referred question, stating that the 5-year limitation period applies only to calling the record for examination by the Commissioner and does not require the entire revision proceeding to be completed within that period. The judgment concluded by stating that there shall be no order as to costs, and the reference was answered accordingly (para 3).