9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 5,049.50 and a sum of Rs. 5,125.25 was alleged to have been paid by it. For the said assessment year, the petitioner produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, being respondent No. 2, bills prepared by the Calcutta office, profit and loss account and the balance sheet. As respondent No. 2 desired to examine all the books of accounts of the petitioner because of certain alleged discrepancies between the return figures and the figures appearing from the profit and loss account, the petitioner prayed for adjournment of the date of hearing on the ground that all its books were not made available from New Delhi and also that the petitioner's accountant was indisposed. It is alleged that in spite of the said prayer made by a letter dated 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd obtained a rule nisi. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the application made by it before respondent No. 1 was to request him to exercise his power of revision suo motu and the time for such revision of his own motion is four years from the date of the assessment. As, admittedly, four years had not expired from the date of the assessment order, respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the application was time-barred. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 proceeded upon an erroneous view as if this application has been made under section 20(3) of the Act read with rule 80(2) of the Rules and hence the period within which an application for revision to be made by a dealer has been erroneously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the facts and the materials brought before the revising authority at the instance of a dealer. The submission on behalf of the respondents was that a suo motu exercise of the power of revision cannot be made at the request of a dealer. To appreciate the controversies it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under section 20(1) of the Act, the right of appeal has been provided against an assessment. Such an appeal is to be preferred before the prescribed authority within the time fixed by the said section. Under section 20(3) of the Act the power of revision has been conferred upon the Commissioner and also the Board of Revenue. Under rule 71 of the Rules, such power of revision can be exercised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subordinate Tribunals or officers keep themselves within the bounds prescribed by law and that the order passed is not illegal or improper or that the proceeding recorded is not irregular. This jurisdiction is one of superintendence and correction in appropriate cases. Hence the revising authority is vested with the power of revision suo motu in order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order. Once such a power is invoked, the jurisdiction exercised by way of suo motu revision is not cribbed and cabined or confined by conditions and qualifications. The purpose of such an amplitude being given to suo motu revision appears to be as much to safeguard the interest of the exchequer as in the interest of the assessee: Eas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances recognised by law. Having regard to the principles discussed above, in my view, respondent No. 1 was wrong in treating this application as time-barred applying the provisions of section 20(3) read with rule 80(2) of the Rules. This cannot be treated as an application made by the dealer by way of revision. In such a case, the restriction provided in the second proviso to section 20(3) of the Act would have been attracted. In view of the fact that an appeal lies against the order sought to be revised, the limitation for preferring such an application provided in section 80(2) of the Rules would also govern such a case. But this petition was filed before respondent No. 1 for the purpose of placing the relevant facts before hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the merits of the case and found that there was hardly any reason for him to hold that a suo motu revision was necessary. The reasoning of respondent No. 1 on this point does not seem to be very clear. While he treats this application as one made under rule 80(2) of the Rules and rejects the same as time-barred, he also proceeded on the basis that it was a suo motu revision. It is not clear as to whether this application was treated by him as one for suo motu revision or as an application for revision at the instance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the order of respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside by a writ of certiorari. There will be a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
