1965 (2) TMI 83 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the time limit under sub-rule (2) of rule 39 of the Bihar Sales Tax rules 1949 for review has expired? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The Commissioner can review his own order without the limit of time and it is for the Commissioner after the expiry of 12 months to determine whether review should or should not take place in other cases. The free power is curtailed by the passage of a year in respect of not the initiation but of the making of the order of review. In the present case as the Commissioner has himself moved for review the requirements of sub- rule (2) as also of sub-rule (3) are fully satisfied and express consent is also available if the order is required to be reviewed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Sales Tax to review an order.
2. Interpretation of the power of review under section 24(5) of the Act.
3. Requirement of prior sanction for review and time limit for review proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Sales Tax to review an order:
The appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Sales Tax to review an order passed by his predecessor. The Corporation contended that the officer had no jurisdiction to review the order of February 11, 1956. The High Court dismissed the petition to quash the orders, leading to the appeal. The High Court's judgment was based on various grounds, including the extent of review allowed by the Act. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the extent of review powers should be left to the authority concerned and not prematurely decided by the High Court. The Tribunal was expected to reach its conclusions independently. The Supreme Court declined to express an opinion on this matter, emphasizing the need for unhampered decision-making by the Tribunal.

2. Interpretation of the power of review under section 24(5) of the Act:
The Corporation argued that the powers of review under section 24(5) of the Act should be construed in line with the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court extensively examined this argument and rejected it. The Supreme Court found this analysis unnecessary and premature, stating that the extent of review should be determined by the relevant authority. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should be allowed to interpret and apply the review powers without interference. The Supreme Court highlighted that any potential errors in the Tribunal's decisions could be corrected at a later stage.

3. Requirement of prior sanction for review and time limit for review proceedings:
The Corporation raised objections based on the requirement of prior sanction for review and the time limit for initiating review proceedings. The Corporation argued that as more than 12 months had passed since the order sought to be reviewed, and no prior sanction was obtained, the review could not proceed. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and the Bihar Sales Tax rules. It was established that a sanction from the Commissioner was necessary for review proceedings, and the time limit did not restrict the initiation but the making of the review order. The Court concluded that in the present case, the Commissioner's sanction was available, and the requirements for review were satisfied. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Sales Tax to conduct the review proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Sales Tax to review the order and clarified the interpretation of the power of review under the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of prior sanction for review and explained the time limit for review proceedings, ultimately dismissing the appeal.