1988 (8) TMI 384 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the revision filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer.
2. Interpretation of the relevant sections of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
3. Validity of the argument regarding the date from which the limitation period should be counted.
4. Significance of the form S.T. 9-B in relation to the limitation period for filing a revision.

Analysis:

The main issue in this case revolves around the timeliness of the revision filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the revision was time-barred. The key contention was whether the limitation period should be counted from the date the order of the Tribunal was communicated to the Commercial Taxes Officer or from the date it was received by the Commissioner.

The relevant sections of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, were crucial in determining the outcome of the case. Section 14-B(2) mandates that the Tribunal sends a copy of its order to the dealer and the Commissioner. Similarly, section 15(2) stipulates that the Commissioner may direct a Commercial Taxes Officer to file a revision within 180 days of the order being communicated in writing to the Commissioner.

The argument put forth by the respondent's counsel, Mr. Singhal, centered on the date of communication of the order to the Commercial Taxes Officer as the starting point for the limitation period. He emphasized the statutory form S.T. 9-B, which requires the petitioner to mention the date of receipt of the order. However, the court rejected this argument, highlighting that the Act clearly designates the Commissioner as the authority to direct the filing of a revision.

The court emphasized that the statutory right of revision must be exercised within the timeframe specified in the Act, irrespective of internal departmental procedures. The judgment underscored that the Commissioner's satisfaction is pivotal for initiating a revision, not the petitioner's status as a Commercial Taxes Officer. The court dismissed the notion that the limitation period should commence from the date the order reached the Commercial Taxes Officer.

Furthermore, the court referenced a recent order in a similar case to support its interpretation of the law. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Commercial Taxes Officer, holding that the revision was filed within the limitation period and dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the assessee.