9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my, AGA ORDER This Court by order dated 07.02.2014, having noticed that the Tribunal had framed two questions for its consideration, had admitted these revision petitions to adjudicate the very same questions framed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for adjudication and they read as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the RA had the jurisdiction to invoke revision proceedings U/s. 63-A of the Act? (2) Whether, the turnover relatable to purchases of goods made from dealers availing of composition benefit U/s.15 is deductible from the total contract receipts for purposes of arriving at the taxable turnover? 2. The issue involved in these revision petitions relates to invoking of suo moto revisional powers by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of the powers vested under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act'). It has been contended by the revision petitioner that Joint Commissioner did not possess jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 63A of the Act on the ground that that said provision came to be inserted by Act No.4/2006 with effect from 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provision of Section 63A of the KVAT Act is without authority of law. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs- Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 367 ITR 466. 7. Per contra, Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned AGA appearing for the respondent has submitted that in the present case, the question of provision being retrospectively made applicable does not arise, as Section 63A of the KVAT Act was brought in prospectively with the power given to the Joint Commissioner to re-open or revise assessment of a period four years prior. He, thus, submitted that the Joint Commissioner has power to revise the assessment for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006, even though the period related prior to 01.04.2006, which was the date on which Section 63A of the KVAT Act had been inserted. 8. Chapter VII of the KVAT Act deals with Appeals and Revision. Section 62 of the KVAT Act provides for appeals to be filed against an order of assessment or any other order, before the appellate authority. Section 63 of the KVAT Act provides for appeal against the order of the appellate authority bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to any proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the Joint Commissioner. Clause(a) of Sub-section(2) of the said Section provides for when the said power can be exercised by the Joint Commissioner and Clause(b) of sub-section(2) provides that the Joint Commissioner shall not exercise any power under the section if more than four years have expired after the passing of the order sought to be revised. Sub-section (3) provides for conclusion of the proceedings, which is one year from the date of initiation of the proceedings. 9. The question which is to be considered by us is whether in the facts of this case, the power could have been exercised by the Joint Commissioner under Section 63A of the KVAT Act which came into force from 01.04.2006 for the assessment period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. If we arrive at a conclusion that the Joint Commissioner can exercise such powers only for the tax period after 01.04.2006, as the Section 63A has come into effect from the said date, then exercise of such power by the Joint Commissioner in the present case cannot be justified as the same relates to Assessment Year 2005-06, which is prior to 01.04.2006. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 21 by adding proviso with effect from 19.02.1991 would not revive the limitation and on the date of amendment coming into force assessment orders has become time barred. This finding of the High Court was reversed and held that it is immaterial if the period of assessement or reassessment under Section 21(2) before the addition of the said proviso had expired and as such while reversing the decision of Allahabad High Court, it was held as under: 25. The two decisions in the cases of Ahmedbad Manufacturing Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla Anr. are more closer to the issue involved in the present case before us. They laid down that it is the language of the provision that matters and when meaning is clear, it has to be given full effect. In both these cases, this Court held that the proviso which amended the existing provision gave it retrospectively. When the provision of law is explicit, it has to operate fully and there could not be any limits to its operation. This Court in Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla case said that if the language expressly so states or clearly implies, retrospectively must be given to the provision. Under Section 34 of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act though sometime both may be the same. Proviso now added to sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act does not put any embargo on the Commissioner of Sales Tax not to reopen the assessment if period, as prescribed earlier, had expired before the proviso came into operation. One has to see the language of the provision. If it is clear, it has to be given its full effect. To reassure oneself, one may go into the intention of the legislature in enacting such provision. The date of commencement of the proviso to Section 21(2) of the Act does not control its retrospective operation. Earlier the assessment/ re-assessment could have been completed within four years of that particular assessment year and now by the amendment adding proviso to section 21(2) of the Act it is eight years. The only safeguard being that it is after satisfaction of thee Commissioner of Sales Tax. The proviso is operative from February 19, 1991 and a bare reading of the proviso shows that the operation of this proviso relates and encompasses back to previous eight assessment years. We need not refer to the provisions of the Income Tax Act to interpret proviso to Section 21(2) the language of which is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
