9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 999 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in setting aside the revision order passed under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune Zone, on the ground that the powers under the said section were already exercised by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the revisional power cannot be exercised twice by the Departmental Authority on the same subject and consequently setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune? Held that - Questions referred do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. They need not be answered in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, return the reference keeping questions open for being considered in appropriate case. In the result, reference stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the exercise of revisional power by the Department at different levels. 2. Determination of whether the revisional power can be exercised twice on the same subject matter by the Departmental Authority. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act The case involved a dispute regarding the exercise of revisional power under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune, had passed an order withdrawing a set-off granted by the Sales Tax Officer. The respondent contended that the Additional Commissioner's action amounted to double revision, which was impermissible in law. The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, stating it was passed without jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed a reference application raising substantial questions of law for determination by the High Court. Issue 2: Exercise of Revisional Power Twice on the Same Subject Matter The key question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the revision order passed by the Additional Commissioner under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The respondent argued that the revisional power cannot be exercised twice by the Departmental Authority on the same subject. The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner's order amounted to double revision and set it aside. The High Court considered submissions from both parties, analyzing relevant statutory provisions, including sections 55 and 57 of the Act. Court's Decision After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the High Court noted that the revisional power exercised by the Additional Commissioner was beyond the prescribed period under section 57 of the Act. The Court highlighted the limitation provided under the law, stating that no notice for revision can be served after three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. As the revisional power was exercised beyond the statutory limitation, the Court concluded that the questions referred did not arise from the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the reference was disposed of without answering the questions, leaving them open for consideration in a suitable case. This judgment from the Bombay High Court clarified the interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations when exercising revisional powers. The Court's decision underscored the significance of procedural compliance and statutory timelines in administrative actions to ensure the legality and validity of revision orders.
|
