9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1969 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSuo motu proceedings for revision - time limitation - interpretation of statute - Section 23(4)(a) of O.S.T.Act read with Rule 80 of the O.S.T.Rules - HELD THAT - The case of the petitioner will be governed by the decision of this Court in the case of M/S. SAGARMAL AGARWALLA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ORISSA, CUTTACK AND 2 OTHERS 2018 (1) TMI 868 - ORISSA HIGH COURT where it was held that we are of the opinion that passing of the order dated 05.09.1996 in Annexure-3 which was beyond the period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, is liable to be quashed as also the order of the Commissioner dated 05.06.1999 in Annexure-4. Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of the O.S.T. Act read with Rule 80 of the O.S.T. Rules regarding limitation for suo motu revision. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of the O.S.T. Act in conjunction with Rule 80 of the O.S.T. Rules concerning the limitation for suo motu revision. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and Orissa Sales Tax Act, was initially assessed in 1991 and later faced reassessment leading to a demand for additional tax. The petitioner challenged the revisional order dated 05.09.1996, contending it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Rule 80. The key argument focused on whether the limitation of three years under Rule 80 applied to the entire revision process, including passing the final order, or only to the initiation of proceedings. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions, emphasizing the need for a proper interpretation to ensure finality and timely resolution of revision proceedings. The Court examined the language of Rule 80, which allowed the Commissioner to call for records and revise orders within three years from the date of the original order. The petitioner argued that the revisional proceedings must be concluded, including passing the revision order, within the three-year limitation period. Any other interpretation would lead to prolonged uncertainty and defeat the purpose of providing finality to revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting Rule 80 in a cohesive manner to ensure timely resolution of revision matters. The Court distinguished a prior decision cited by the respondent, noting that it pertained to a different provision of the OST Act and did not address the specific issue of passing the final order within the prescribed period for revision. Ultimately, the Court held that the revisional order dated 05.09.1996, passed beyond the three-year limitation period, was liable to be quashed, along with the subsequent order dated 05.06.1999. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, with no costs imposed on either party. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for revision proceedings to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the tax assessment process.
|
