2013 (10) TMI 396 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Application for Revision Section 67F of the Abkari Act - Held that - Relying upon State of Kerala v. Avinasiappan 2003 (11) TMI 327 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - The application filed by the petitioner can be considered by the Commissioner and if the Commissioner finds any material on which revisory powers are to be exercised, then it is for the Commissioner to do so under Section 67F and, if not, dismiss the same as not maintainable - the interest of the State is secured by the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and the application filed as a revision is still pending, this Court deems it fit that the Commissioner be directed to consider the application Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice for production of vehicle and threat of security amount forfeiture; Maintainability of revision application as per Supreme Court decision; Interpretation of Section 67F of the Abkari Act regarding revisory powers of Commissioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti van, challenged a notice demanding production of the vehicle failing which the security amount deposited was threatened with forfeiture. The petitioner had moved an application for revision of the order passed by the appellate authority, which was pending consideration. The State contended that no revision was maintainable based on a Supreme Court decision. The Court noted that while the Supreme Court held there was no statutory right to file a revision application, it also stated that the Commissioner may consider the question of proceedings based on an appropriate application. The Court opined that the application filed by the petitioner could be considered by the Commissioner under Section 67F of the Abkari Act. The Court directed the Commissioner to consider the application within three months and keep the notice in abeyance until the application was disposed of.

The Court emphasized that the power under Section 67F of the Abkari Act allows the Commissioner to take suo motu revision and that if material warranting revisory powers is found, the Commissioner should act accordingly. The Court highlighted that the interest of the State was secured by a Bank Guarantee provided by the petitioner and that the application filed for revision was still pending. Therefore, the Court directed the Commissioner to consider the application within three months, even if not treated as a revision, and instructed to keep the notice in abeyance until the application's disposal. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed on any party.