9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1953, could not apply in respect of the assessment orders passed on 18th August, 1953, and the Commissioner had no power to revise those orders by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under section 22-B. It may be mentioned that under the orginal orders, the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati, had granted exemption to the assessee in respect of certain sales of cloth, on the ground that these sales were pure exports and they were exempted under the provisions of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Commissioner rejected the assessee's contention regarding his revisional powers under section 22-B of the Sales Tax Act, and on the merits he took a different view from that taken by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax regarding the exemption to be given to the sales of cloth and held that the sales in question were taxable. He, therefore, set aside the assessment orders and remanded the two cases to the Regional Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to proceed with the assessment of the assessee in the light of his revisional orders. These revisional orders in the two cases were passed by the Commissioner on 26th April, 1954, that is to say, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exercise his revisional powers under section 22-B of the Sales Tax Act, so as to affect orders which were passed prior to the coming into force of this section on 1st December, 1953; and it is contended by Mr. Phadke on behalf of the assessee that section 22-B, which, along with other sections, was inserted by the M.P. Act No. XX of 1953 in substitution of the original section 22, could not have any retrospective operation so as to affect the orders passed in these cases on 18th August, 1953. Now, in order to examine this contention, it would be necessary to look into the provisions of the original section 22 of the Sales Tax Act and the new sections which replaced it by virtue of the Amending Act No. XX of 1953. Section 22, as it originally stood, was a composite section dealing with appeals against original orders of the taxing authorities, as well as the revisional powers of the Commissioner, as also of the Tribunal. Under sub-section (4) of section 22, every order passed in appeal was, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) and section 23, to be final. Under sub-section (5) of section 22, which dealt with the revisional powers, it was provided: "Subject to rules made und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than one year previously. Under sub-section (2) of section 22-A, the Commissioner could be moved also by a dealer for revision, provided the application was made within one year from the date of the order sought to be revised. It would, therefore, appear from section 22-A (2) that instead of the period of 30 days provided under rule 57, the assessee was given the right to apply in revision to the Commissioner against an original or appellate order within one year from the date of the order. Then comes section 22-B with which we are concerned in these references and it runs as follows: "(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under section 3 to assist him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. (2) No order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for revision could be filed. As I have already pointed out, under the new section 22-A (2) that period has been actually enlarged to a period of one year from the date of the order, so that the right of the assessee to file revisional applications has been placed on a footing more beneficial to the assessee, inasmuch as tinder the new section 22-A he now gets a period of one year within which to make an application for revision. Rule 57, as it originally stood, did not deal with the case of revision by the Commissioner acting suo molu, and the requirement in the proviso as to a question of law was confined to cases of revision of an order of assessment passed in appeal. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept Mr. Phadke's contention that the Commissioner's power of revision suo motu under old section 22(5) could only be exercised if the order of the subordinate authority was erroneous on a question of law. In our opinion, therefore, the present section 22-B does not impose any greater disability on the assessee when the Commissioner seeks to exercise his power suo motu on the ground that any order passed by the subordinate authority was erroneous in so far as it was prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en retrospective effect by M.P. Act No. XX of 1953 from 1st June, 1947, and that was possibly the reason why the Legislature provided for a period of three calendar years from the expiry of the assessment period, so that the assessees may not be subjected to harassment after a considerable lapse of time. Section 11-A deals with the power of the original assessing authority and has no relation to the revisional powers of the Commissioner provided under the old section 22(5) and under the present section 22-B. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept Mr. Phadke's contention that because section 22-B(2) does not correlate the period of limitation to the period of assessment, a greater disability is imposed on the assessee. What is contemplated under section 11-A is an action by the original assessing authority when it finds in consequence of any information which has come into its possession that there has been a case of under-assessment or escapement of assessment. The Full Bench of this Court on which Mr. Phadke relies decided to read sections 11 and 11-A together and held that notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 11 would be bad if it was issued three calendar years afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption against retrospective construction has no application to enactments which affect only the procedure and practice of Courts or Tribunals, ibid page 225. As I have already stated, Mr. Phadke's argument that the present section 22-B casts a greater disability on the assessee cannot be accepted. In our judgment, the new section merely regulates the exercise by the Sales Tax Commissioner of his powers of revision and does not whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the assessee, or impose any greater disability on him. It seems to us, in the circumstances, that section 22-B, which came into force, on 1st December, 1953, involves really nothing more than an alteration of procedure designed to regulate the exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner. In our opinion, therefore, under section 22-B, the Commissioner would be entitled to revise orders passed prior to 1st December, 1953, when that section came into force. At the same time, under sub-section (2) of section 22-B, the revisional order itself cannot be passed after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. As the questions framed by the Sales Tax Tribunal appear to us to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
