9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 612 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevisional powers of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax - period of limitation - section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act - manufacture and resale of oil, oil cakes deoil cakes etc - did the Assistant Commissioner exercise revisional powers within the period of limitation prescribed? - Held that - the Commissioner on his own motion may exercise revisional powers within three years from the date of the order passed by a subordinate officer by calling for and examining the record of such order and can pass such order as he thinks fit and proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice for revision. This additional requirement of passing such order as he thinks proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision has been inserted by virtue of Amending Gujarat Act 10 of 1992. The Commissioner had not exercised the revisional powers under subsection (1) of section 67 within the period of limitation prescribed - revisional order of the Commissioner quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for exercising revisional powers by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. Interpretation of statutory provisions under Section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation for Exercising Revisional Powers by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax: The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.12.2014 by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's revision application against the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 06.08.1999. The petitioner's sole argument was regarding the limitation period for exercising revisional powers by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, received a notice dated 24.02.1999 from the Assistant Commissioner calling for information relating to purchases made during the assessment year 1991-92. Subsequently, a notice dated 16.04.1999 proposed to levy purchase tax under section 15B of the Act. The petitioner objected, stating that the proceedings were beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 67 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner ignored these objections and passed an order on 06.08.1999, claiming the revisional powers were exercised within the limitation period as he had called for the record on 06.04.1997, which was within two years from the assessment order dated 06.05.1995. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s decision, referencing the earlier judgment in The State Of Gujarat vs Jamnagar Motor Stores, which stated that revisional power commences when the Commissioner calls for the record and examines it. 2. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions under Section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation by not considering the amended provisions of section 67, which were applicable in this case. The counsel pointed out that the decision in Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. was relevant as it dealt with the amended provisions, unlike the Jamnagar Motor Stores case which dealt with the unamended provisions. The counsel emphasized that section 67, as amended, requires the issuance of notice and passing of the final order by the Revisional authority within 12 months from the date of receipt of such notice. The purposive interpretative process should be adopted to avoid unintended mischief or harm, as supported by various judicial precedents. The Court observed that the amended section 67 necessitates the Commissioner to pass the final order within 12 months from the date of service of notice for revision. This significant change was intended to ensure that the exercise of suo motu revisional powers by the Commissioner does not remain open-ended, bringing finality to pending issues. The Court noted that the Tribunal ignored the binding decision in Om Metals & Minerals Ltd., which was rendered in the context of the amended section 67. The Tribunal incorrectly followed the Jamnagar Motor Stores judgment, which was based on the unamended provisions. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Assistant Commissioner did not exercise revisional powers within the prescribed limitation period as interpreted under the amended section 67. The notice for revision was issued after the period of three years, making the exercise of revisional powers time-barred. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside, and consequently, the revisional order of the Commissioner was quashed. The petition was allowed and disposed of.
|
