9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 667, C.A. Nos. 668 of 1975, - - - Dated:- 27-1-1976 - KRISHNA IYER V.R., GUPTA A.C. AND UNTWALIA N.L. JJ. F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate (Randhir Chawla, G.C. Sharma, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Talat Ansari, Ravinder Narain and O.C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s/. J.B. Dadachanji Co., Advocates, with him), for the appellant. G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate (R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.- In these appeals by certificate the question for determination is whether the exercise of the power of revision under sub- section (3) of section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi-hereinafter called the Act-is subject to the period of limitation provided in sub-section (2a) of section 11 or section 11-A of the said Act. The requisite facts lie in a narrow compass and may usefully be stated at the outset. The appellant who was carrying on the business of execution of building contracts was assessed to sales tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer for the year 1955-56 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing the Commissioner, the Commissioner is subject to the period of limitation provided in sections 11 and 11-A even when exercising the revisional power under section 20(3). (4) That in any view of the matter the revisional authority must exercise the power in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time. It cannot exercise the power of revision, suo motu, after a long lapse of time at its sweet will and pleasure. Under section 3 of the Act, a hierarchy of officers has been constituted by the Chief Commissioner, namely, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sales Tax Officers and others to assist him. Section 11 of the Act deals with assessment of tax. The Sales Tax Officer exercising the powers as an officer to assist the Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Act can proceed to assess the amount of the tax due from a registered dealer within 18 months of the expiry of a particular period. A dealer who has been liable to pay tax under the Act but has failed to get himself registered can be assessed to tax under sub-section (2). Then sub-section (2a) says: "No assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made after the expiry of four years and no assessment under sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o assist him, and subject as aforesaid, the Chief Commissioner may, in like manner, revise any order passed by the Commissioner." The Commissioner can revise any assessment made or order passed under the Act including the order of the appellate authority. The limits of the revisional power are not circumscribed in sub-section (3), but it goes without saying that they will be akin to the power of the appellate authority as mentioned in sub-section (2). The revisional authority, obviously, as pointed out by this court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company' should not trench upon the power expressly reserved by the Act or the Rules to other authorities and cannot ignore the limits inherent in exercise of those powers. Section 11-A is one such power which deals with assessment and reassessment of tax in case of an escaped assessment or under-assessment. Exercise of that power is subject to the limitations provided therein. In rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, a period of limitation of 60 days has been provided for the filing of an application in revision which can be extended under the proviso appended to that rule on sufficient cause being sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand order, the assessing authority could pass a fresh order of assessment within 4 years of such order. But if the higher authority itself revised the assessment then it would be barred by the rule of limitation provided in section 11(2a). To avoid such an anomaly Mr. Nariman suggested a construction to be put which neither solves the anomaly nor is warranted by the language of the provisions of the Act. Counsel submitted that in all cases the powers must be exercised within 4 years of the period in respect of which an assessment was being made on a registered dealer. It will be wholly unreasonable-almost impossible-to say that all orders in appeal, revision or reference must be passed within four years of the end of the period of assessment, otherwise they will be barred. It does not solve the anomaly either. Even if the order of remand is made, say, just on the last day of the period of four years, it will be competent to the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment within the further period of four years. The ratio of the case in Debaki Debi's [1964] 15 S.T.C. 153 (S.C.)., must be confined within its four corners and cannot be extended to the facts of the instant case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al facts, was followed in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar v. Shiva Pujan Prasad Bhagat [1974] 33 S.T.C. 466. But the principle decided in those cases cannot help the appellant. It may well be that if the assessing authority itself exercises the power of review it cannot circumscribe the bar of limitation provided in section 11(2a). But it will be unjust, unreasonable and impracticable to say that the said bar of limitation must also continue to run at all stages of the proceedings, namely, the appellate, revisional, reference, writ or any other stage. It was pointed out by this court in Swastik Oil Mills' case [1968] 21 S.T.C. 383 (S.C.)., that the Deputy Commissioner when seeking to exercise his revisional powers was not encroaching upon the powers reserved to other authorities. The powers were not exercised for the purpose of assessing or reassessing an escaped turnover. The revisional powers were sought to be exercised to correct what appeared to be an incorrect order passed by an Assistant Collector and for such a purpose proceedings could not possibly have been taken under section 11-A. In the instant case also, it could not be disputed that the view taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
