9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Commissioner invoked his revisional power in these references within the period of 5 years. The final orders in revision were passed by the Assistant Commissioner after a period of 5 years. It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessees that the orders revising the assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner were illegal because it was necessary under the law that the final orders revising the assessment should have been passed within the period of 5 years. The Tribunal accepted the said argument and at the instance of the State has referred the following question for our determination, namely, whether on the correct interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the period of limitation of 5 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of being heard. (4) If the Tribunal rejects any application for revision under this section, the Tribunal shall record the reasons for such rejection." Before we consider as to what is the true interpretation of section 57, it is necessary to state the legislative history on the point. The Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and 1953, provided for revisional powers but no limitation was provided for the exercise of the said power. The revisional power thereunder could have been exercised at any time. The Legislature, in order to avoid this lacuna and to provide a just formula, enacted section 57 which initially provided a period of 2 years within which the Commissioner had to exercise his revisional powers suo motu. This section was amended a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore[1967] 19 S.T.C. 257. The period of 5 years referred to in section 57 refers to initiation of the revisional proceeding. It is not necessary that the entire process of revision must be completed within the specified period. The revisional power under section 57 can be exercised in favour of the State or in favour of the assessee. To accept the argument that the entire process of revision including the passing of the final order must be completed within 5 years would lead to many anomalies and defeat the very purpose for which the section has been enacted. It would result in injustice to the assessee because an order of assessment which is apparently erroneous so far as he is concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vel Nadar v. The State of Madras[1962] 46 I.T.R. 251. In section 57 initially the Legislature provided a period of 2 years. The short period provided in the section for the exercise of revisional power is indicative of the fact that the period provided therein must be for initiating the proceedings and not for completion of the entire process of revision because the number of revisional proceedings would not be less and, therefore, cannot be completed within the time provided in the section. The period of limitation, no doubt, is subsequently enlarged but it is again reduced. For the aforesaid reasons the criteria is not the time when the final order is passed in the revision, but the point of time when the revision proceeding is initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
