9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice nor in its order nor the counsel for the State before this court assigned any reason as to why such notice was being issued after a period of six years. There was no reason or justification with the department to explain this delay of six years, therefore, in this case the revisional authority has not exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 21(1) of the Act within a reasonable period. Thus, the orders passed by the revising authority as well as the VAT Tribunal are liable to be quashed. - VAT Appeal No. 9 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2008 - SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND RAKESH KUMAR GARG , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH KUMAR MITTAL J. The assessee, who was a dealer registered under the Punjab Gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase tax was leviable on the paddy purchased by the assessee, and the assessing officer while committing grave illegality had illegally ordered for refund of Rs. 90,702. The assessee objected to the re-opening of the assessment on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that the said judgment pertains to the State of Haryana and the same is not applicable in the State of Punjab as the provisions of the Act are different. The revisional authority vide its order dated August 9, 2006 passed the order while observing that in view of the decision dated July 13, 2000 rendered by this court in Veerumal Monga's case [2001] 123 STC 158; [2000] 16 PHT 304, the assessee was liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy out of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid substantial question of law, which, in our opinion, is arising from the order of the VAT Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that under the Act for exercising the suo motu power under section 21(1) of the Act, no period of limitation has been prescribed. However, learned counsel submits that the revisional authority can exercise the said power within a reasonable period if sufficient reasons exist to exercise the said power on that date. While referring to the decision of this court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited v. State of Punjab [2007] 8 VST 418, learned counsel submitted that this court in the said case has laid down the following principles in which the revisional authority can exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Supreme Court in Monga Rice Mill v. State of Haryana [2004] 135 STC 549; [2004] 23 PHT 418, the assessee was liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy. He submitted that as per the Division Bench decision of this court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited v. State of Punjab [2007] 8 VST 418, what is reasonable period has to be decided on the facts of each case. Since in the present case the assessee was liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy, the revisional authority was fully justified in revising the order of assessment even after expiry of more than six years. Undisputedly, in the present case the assessing officer framed the assessment for the year 1996-97 vide order dated March 27, 2000 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable period as held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007] 10 VST 180. (What shall be a reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors). While considering the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has laid down that though under the Act no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercising the revisional power under section 21(1) of the Act, but the said power must be exercised within a reasonable period, which, according to the Supreme Court, is three years. In the said judgment, keeping in view the scheme of the Act, it has also been observed that in any event the said per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this delay of six years when the department was very much aware of the judgment in Veerumal Monga's case [2001] 123 STC 158; [2000] 16 PHT 304. Therefore, in our opinion, in this case the revisional authority has not exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 21(1) of the Act within a reasonable period. Thus, the orders passed by the revising authority as well as the VAT Tribunal are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders dated August 9, 2006 passed by the revising authority as well as the VAT Tribunal dated February 15, 2008 are hereby quashed with no order as to costs and the order dated March 27, 2000 passed by the assessing officer is restored. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
