9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 23rd June, 1975, allowed the same and directed the deletion of levy of purchase tax on the aforesaid purchase turnover of Rs. 1,53,952.41 with which claim only we are concerned in this case. In allowing the said appeal of the assessee the DC relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in State v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1975] 35 STC 360. 3.. On 19th August, 1975, the Commissioner who is conferred with the suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Act, called for the records in the said appeal from the DC which were received by him on 21st August, 1975. On receipt of those records, they were placed before the Commissioner with an office note thereon to the effect that the matter be pursued after the Supreme Court renders its decision in the appeal filed by the State against the decision of this Court in State v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1975] 35 STC 360 and the same was approved by the Commissioner on 30th August, 1975. On 24th March, 1981, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State in Raghurama Shetty's case [1981] 47 STC 369 (SC) and reversed the decision of this Court. 4.. On 27th May, 1981, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and conferred power of revision on the Deputy Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners of the area. Section 18 of the amending Act inserted section 22-A conferring power of revision on the Commissioner. In Mohamed Samiullah v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1986] 61 STC 107 (FB); ILR (1985) Kar 481 (FB), a Full Bench of this Court noticing this legislative history and upholding the validity of section 22-A has held that section 21(2) of the original Act has been bodily lifted and enacted as section 22-A of the Act. 8.. We will first ascertain the scope and ambit of section 22-A of the Act, without reference to the authorities but only keeping in view the progressive rule of construction of statutes that is now firmly established. 9.. Section 22-A of the Act that is material reads thus: "22-A. Revision by the Commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue.-(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 officer subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich carries out the purposes and object of that provision, we cannot uphold the contention of Sri Srinivasan. 11.. We will now turn to the authorities on the point. 12.. In Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 this Court was called upon to decide the validity of an order made by the Commissioner in revisional proceedings initiated by him in calling for records, issuing a show cause notice within the period of four years but completing the proceedings after 4 years under section 21(2) of the Act as in the present case. In repelling a similar contention urged before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hegde and Honniah, JJ. (as their Lordships then were), speaking through Hegde, J., expressed thus: "Is the exercise of that power merely means passing of an order which he thinks fit? The power conferred on the Commissioner under section 21(2) as could be gathered from its language includes three different facets, viz., (1) calling for the records mentioned therein, (2) examination of those records, and (3) passing such orders, with respect thereto as he thinks fit. The Commissioner begins to exercise his power under section 21(2) as soon as he calls for the records in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional ground for reconsideration of Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 does not shed any light on the construction of section 22-A(2) of the Act at all. We do not find any good ground to doubt the correctness of the ruling in Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 and refer the same to a larger Bench. 14.. In Jamnagar Motor Stores' case [1974] 33 STC 353 a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dealing with an analogous provision in the Bombay Sales Tax Act following the ruling of this Court in Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 has taken a similar view. In N.V.S. Kadirvel Nadar v. State of Madras [1962] 46 ITR 251 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealing with an analogous provision in the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act has also taken a similar view. We are of the view that the Division Bench ruling of this Court in K.G. Subramanya v. T.V. Reddi, Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1969] 1 Mys LJ 274 interpreting the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act as it then stood cannot be understood as laying down a different proposition than the one expressed by the High Court of Madras in Kadirvel Nadar's case [1962] 46 ITR 251. We are in respectf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
