2024 (1) TMI 816 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Initiation of Suo moto revision proceedings - whether the Commissioner and/or Additional Commissioner could have initiated suo motu revision proceeding on the same set of grounds on which, earlier, the said authority itself granted sanction for initiation of review proceedings by the adjudicating authority? HELD THAT - It is not a proper course of action to be adopted in approaching the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for initiation of suo motu revision proceeding, on its own motion, on the same set of facts in respect of which Commissioner of Commercial Taxes itself granted sanction for initiation of review proceedings. Under the scheme of JVAT Act, there is statutory provision for appeal and statutory provision of revision before Commercial Taxes Tribunal and, if the department was not satisfied with the original adjudication order and/or the order by which review proceeding was dropped, it was open for the department including Commissioner to direct the competent authority to prefer statutory Appeal and/or statutory Revision before the competent authority in terms of Section 79 and 80(1) of the JVAT Act. However, in our opinion, it was not open for the Revenue particularly, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to initiate suo-motu revision proceeding, that too, on the mere filing of a letter by writ petitioner-DCCT. From bare perusal of Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act, it would transpire that the Commissioner may, on its own motion, call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any order has been passed. In the present case, from the records of the proceeding of Additional Commissioner, it transpires that although Additional Commissioner has recorded in its order that he has perused the records of the assessment proceedings, but there is no such evidence to that effect available in the records. It is pertinent to indicate that the jurisdictional fact of assuming jurisdiction under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is calling for records of proceeding pertaining to any order and, thereafter, satisfying itself that said order requires interference by the said authority. In the instant case, aforesaid jurisdictional fact itself is absent and the Additional Commissioner, merely on the strength of a letter written by DCCT, initiated suo motu revision proceedings without even calling for records of the case and without even examining the orders in question - the Commissioner has acted beyond the power conferred to it under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act is in accordance with law and requires no interference by this Court. Thus, the orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes dated 25.04.2019 suffer from various illegalities and infirmities and the same have been rightly set aside by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, vide its order dated 28.02.2020. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Revision Application
2. Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner
3. Principles of Natural Justice
4. Procedural Irregularities

Summary:

1. Maintainability of Revision Application:
The writ petitions challenge the maintainability of the revision applications filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (D.C.C.T.) before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Tribunal found that the D.C.C.T. indulged in "Forum shopping" by filing a revision application after dropping review proceedings on the same grounds. The Tribunal held that the revision application was not maintainable as it was filed in a casual manner and dealt with undue haste.

2. Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner:
The Tribunal questioned the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to entertain the revision application under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act, especially when the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had earlier granted sanction for review proceedings on the same grounds. The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner, being a delegate of the Commissioner, could not exercise suo motu revision on the same grounds, which would be barred by the principles of "nemo judex causa sua" (no man shall be a judge of his own cause).

3. Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal found that the Additional Commissioner acted in undue haste and without granting effective opportunity of hearing to the Respondent-assessee. The revision application was disposed of within 14 days without following proper procedure, and the records of the assessment proceedings were not available with the Additional Commissioner while passing the order.

4. Procedural Irregularities:
The Tribunal noted several procedural irregularities, including the filing of a single revision application for two separate assessment orders and the failure to annex assessment orders or records with the revision application. The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner acted in defiance of Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act and passed a non-speaking order without application of mind.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ applications, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Court found that the Additional Commissioner acted beyond the power conferred under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act and in undue haste, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.