2016 (7) TMI 1424 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - suo moto revision of the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 - time limitation - Held that - The identical issue was considered by Hon ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Limited 2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . It was observed that even if no period of limitation is provided under the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction that does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time. Five years period was held to be the final limit - the notice issued for revising the assessment after more than 20 years certainly deserves to be set aside on account of delay - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision of assessment after more than 20 years of passing the order
- Maintainability of the writ petition against the notice
- Determining a reasonable period for exercising revisional jurisdiction

Analysis:
The legal issue in this case revolves around the notice dated 27.6.2001 issued under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 for revising the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, more than 20 years after the original assessment. The petitioner challenges the validity of the notice based on the delay in revision beyond the maximum period prescribed under the Act for any action.

The judgment references a similar issue considered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Limited, where it was established that although no specific period of limitation is provided under the Act for revisional jurisdiction, the power cannot be exercised at any time. The Supreme Court held that a reasonable period for exercising revisional jurisdiction should not exceed five years, with three years being the ordinary period, considering the nature of the statute and relevant factors.

The court emphasized that the question of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, making the writ petition maintainable in this case. Despite the general principle that a writ court may not entertain a petition challenging the validity of a notice when alternative remedies exist under the Act, the unique circumstances of this case, where the revisional authority failed to justify the delay of more than five years in issuing the notice, warranted the writ petition's consideration.

In light of the Supreme Court's precedent and the principles of reasonableness in exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the impugned notice issued after more than 20 years for revising the assessment. The court's decision was based on the established legal principle that such significant delays in initiating revision proceedings are unjustified and unsustainable under the statutory framework. Thus, the writ petition was allowed, and the notice was declared invalid and set aside.