2007 (10) TMI 300 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

What should be the reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? Held that - Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. The Revisional Authority, being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act

Facts: The appeal concerns a notice issued by the Revisional Authority-cum-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner to the respondent, a federation of milk union, for reopening an assessment order. The respondent had filed returns for the year ending 31-3-2000, and the assessment proceedings were completed on 20-3-2001.

Legal Provisions: The Punjab General Sales Tax Act contains provisions regarding the limitation period for completing assessments. Section 11 of the Act prescribes a three-year limitation for completing assessments, extendable to five years in certain cases. Section 21 deals with revisional powers of the Commissioner, allowing for a review of proceedings.

Arguments: The appellant contended that the High Court erred in considering the notice for revision as unsustainable due to lack of justification for exercising revisional jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the Revisional Authority could have been approached with all contentions, and the High Court should not have intervened prematurely.

Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court held that although Section 21 of the Act does not specify a limitation period for revisional jurisdiction, it must be exercised within a reasonable period. The Court determined that a reasonable period for exercising revisional jurisdiction should not exceed three years, with a maximum limit of five years, as per the statutory scheme.

Precedents: The Court cited precedents such as *The State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi* and *S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India* to support the view that revisional powers should be exercised within a reasonable time frame. The Court emphasized that the absence of an explicit limitation does not mean the power can be exercised at any time.

Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the notice for revision issued after 5 1/2 years lacked justification. The Court affirmed that the High Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in considering the reasonableness of the period for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(1) of the Act.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the legal provisions applicable, arguments presented, court's analysis, relevant precedents, and the final conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in this case.