9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Excise and Taxation Commissioner thereafter took action under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act and, as per order dated 1st May, 1959, revised the order dated 27th August, 1956, of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and directed that the Assessing Authority should made de novo assessment in respect of inter-State sales made by the assessee-company from its branches outside the Punjab where the goods were delivered for consumption in the State for the period subsequent to 1st January, 1954. The assessee-company feeling aggrieved filed a revision on 29th September, 1959, under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner against the order dated 1st May, 1959, of the Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner, as per order dated 11th April, 1960, dismissed the revision petition in limine on the ground of being time-barred. It was held that the time normally allowed for filing of revision petitions was 90 days, while the revision petition had been filed on the expiry of 125 days. Twentyseven days were found to have been spent in getting copies from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and as such the petition was held to be barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of law, he may pass such order on the case as he may think fit. (4) No order shall be made under this section, which adversely affects the rights of an assessee or other person upon whom an obligation is imposed by or under this Act, without giving such assessee or other person a reasonable opportunity of being heard." It has been argued on behalf of the assessee-company by Mr. Jain that sub-section (3) of section 21 specifies no period of limitation and gives a power to the Financial Commissioner to call at any time for the record of a case decided by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, in the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground that it was filed more than 90 days, after excluding the days spent in obtaining copies, from the date of the decision of the Commissioner. In this respect I am of the view that though the statute has prescribed no period of limitation for filing a revision, there is nothing in the language of section 21 which prohibits the Financial Commissioner from refusing to entertain revisions which are filed after a long delay unless a cogent explanation is furnished for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition. It is true that no particular period is prescribed in the Limitation Act within which a petition for revision must be filed, but the revising authorities are vested with discretion in the matter of entertaining such petitions and in suitable cases they are in their discretion entitled to refuse to entertain those which are filed after unreasonable delay." Mr. Jain has referred to the case, Chaman Lal Bros. (Private) Ltd. v. The Punjab State and Others[1961] 12 S.T.C. 643; 63 P.L.R. 495., decided by my learned brother Dua, J., but on reference to it I find that it was decided on its particular facts. It would appear that in that case the memorandum containing the information about the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not sent to the assessee. It was in those circumstances that the Court held that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in dismissing the revision petition as time-barred. As a result of the above, I would answer the reference in the negative. The parties, in the circumstances, are left to bear their own costs of this reference. DUA, J.-I agree that the reference be answered in the negative. I may, however, add a few words. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a legislative rather than of a judicial function, for judicial power is only concerned with what law is or has been, and legislative, with what law shall be. A precedent in the form of a decision by a Financial Commissioner may serve as a helpful analogy on the question of undue delay but it cannot constitute a rigid rule of law partaking of a legislative mandate excluding exercise of judicial discretion in future cases in a disciplined and responsible manner on the facts and circumstances, on each occasion, as if the officer concerned has already made up his mind in the sense of being bound by a law-giver's command. An authority, if I may so put it, may offend even by adopting a self-imposed rigid rule resulting virtually in abdication of genuine discretion. Power to decide, in my view, means to come to a decision with reference to the merits by forming judgment on the facts as intended by the statutory enactment. There is one other aspect, which also deserves to be borne in mind in cases like the present. The right of revision is undoubtedly conferred on the Financial Commissioner without conferring a right on the aggrieved party to approach him. It may, therefore, be argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
