1979 (9) TMI 188 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 67(1)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
2. Validity of the impugned notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax.
3. Merger of the Assistant Commissioner's revisional order with the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to Invoke Suo Motu Revisional Powers:
The primary issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax could invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 67(1)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, after the Assistant Commissioner had already exercised such powers regarding the same subject matter. The court observed that according to Section 67(1)(a), the Commissioner has the authority to revise any order passed by an officer appointed under Section 27. The Assistant Commissioner, being an officer appointed to assist the Commissioner, exercised the Commissioner's powers under Section 67(1)(a) when he revised the order of the Sales Tax Officer.

The court held that once the Assistant Commissioner exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 67(1)(a), the power was fully exhausted. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not reinvoke the same revisional power for the same subject matter. The court relied on a previous Division Bench decision in Special Civil Application No. 1659 of 1972, which established that once revisional jurisdiction is exercised by one officer, it cannot be re-exercised by another officer for the same subject matter.

2. Validity of the Impugned Notice Issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax:
The petitioner challenged the impugned notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that the notice sought to re-exercise revisional powers under Section 67(1)(a) for the same subject matter that had already been addressed by the Assistant Commissioner. The court found that the impugned notice was ex facie without jurisdiction and null and void. The court emphasized that revisional powers under Section 67(1)(a) could not be exercised twice over for the same subject matter, as it would amount to a review, which is not permitted under Section 67.

3. Merger of the Assistant Commissioner's Revisional Order with the Order of the Sales Tax Tribunal:
The petitioner alternatively argued that the Assistant Commissioner's revisional order had merged with the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the prior revisional order. However, the court found it unnecessary to examine this issue in detail, as the first issue regarding the exhaustion of revisional powers was dispositive. The court did not express any opinion on the merger question, as the impugned notice was already deemed without jurisdiction based on the first issue.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was without jurisdiction, null, and void, as the revisional powers under Section 67(1)(a) had already been exhausted by the Assistant Commissioner. The court quashed the impugned notice and made the rule absolute with costs.