9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the implements are to be drawn only by tractor, disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant. The order of assessment was framed on October 31, 1986. Aggrieved against the order of assessing officer appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was accepted on March 12, 1987. 3.. The Additional Commissioner, in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Act, sent for the records of the first appellate authority on June 8, 1987 which were received in the Office of the Commissioner on June 10, 1987. The notice to the appellant was issued on March 22, 1994. 4.. Section 22-A(1) and (3) which are relevant for determining the controversy between the parties are reproduced below: 22-A. Revisional powers of Additional Commissioner and Commissioner.- (1) The Additional Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under section 20 or section 21 of this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of a Joint Commissioner, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, a Division Bench while examining the powers conferred on the Commissioner under section 21(2) which is in pari materia with section 22-A which is under consideration before us, it was held that in case the records therein are called for within the period mentioned in section 21(3), then no question of limitation arises. In other words, the limitation for initiation of proceedings is complete on summoning the records and it is not from the date the notices were sent to the parties or the termination of the proceedings. It was held as under: 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 question and the exercise of that power comes to an end when he passes an order in respect thereto. All that section 21(3) says is that the power conferred under section 21(2) is exercisable within four years from the date of the order of assessment, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod occupied by injunctions and stay orders on which reliance is placed by Sri Srinivasan to urge as 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. 7.. The matter was again considered by our Court in Keshawa Trading Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [1986] 62 STC 102. While following the earlier two judgments referred to above, their Lordships dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee. In this case, Deputy Commissioner forwarded the records for initiating suo motu action in exercise of the powers under section 22-A of the Act. The records were received by the Commissioner on March 23, 1977. Office of the Commissioner prepared note which reads as under: The above cases may lie over till the Supreme Court s decision in B.R. Shetty s case is received as we cannot initiate action under section 22-A for the present. This note was approved by the Commissioner on July 8, 1977. The Supreme Court dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot he considered it necessary to initiate action under section 22-A of the Act. In this behalf he accepted the suggestion in paragraph 3 of the departmental note extracted earlier and agreed that he could not initiate action under section 22-A since this Court s decision in B.R. Shetty s case was awaited. Whether he was right in doing so or not is not relevant but it is obvious that he did not initiate any action even after the receipt of the records for the reason mentioned in paragraph 3 of the departmental note. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the reason trotted out in the show cause notice for saving the action from being barred by limitation has no basis and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned decision in this behalf is clearly erroneous. 9.. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Supreme Court indirectly reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the revisional powers under section 22-A could be exercised by sending the notice to the assessee within four years from the date of passing of orders sought to be revised. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he jurisdiction under sections 12A, 21 and 22A of the Act shall pass orders referred to in the said section within a period of 2 years from the date of initiation of such proceedings or calling for records, as the case may be. In view of the amendment made by the Legislature by Act No. 7 of 1997, no observation need be made in this respect. 11A. Relying upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 664 in which their Lordships differed with the opinion expressed in Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore [1967] 19 STC 257 (Mys.) and Busunur Industries v. State of Karnataka [1986] 61 STC 123 (Kar) counsel for the appellant contended that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for consideration. We do not agree with the suggestion made by the counsel. Three different Division Benches of this Court have examined this point at different point of time and came to the same conclusion. Simply because another High Court has taken a different view by itself is no reason to reconsider the view taken by this Court. Otherwise, with due respect to the honourable Judges of the Andhra Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
