9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed - revisional order of the Commissioner quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me form in section 67 of the said Act, but came to be amended with effect from 07.04.1992 by virtue of Amendment Act of Gujarat Act No.10 of 1992. Counsel submitted that the decision of this Court in case of Jamnagar Motor Stores (supra) was referred in the background of the provisions contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which were similar to unamended section 67 of the Act, whereas, this Court in case of Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. (supra) was concerned with the amended provisions of section 67 which are applicable in the present case. He pointed out that the decision in case of Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. (supra) was followed in the later decision in case of Atul Auto Ltd v. State of Gujarat, in Tax Appeal No.35 of 2007 and connected proceedings decided on 05.11.2015. 7. Taking us through the present statutory provisions contained in section 67 of the Act, counsel submitted that the purposive interpretative process should be adopted to avoid any unintended mischief or harm being caused. He submitted that in the present form, section 67 envisages issuance of notice and passing final order by the Revisional authority within 12 months from the date of receipt of such a notice. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s case [(1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a] and which has been invoked by this Court for construing different legislations. In Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1955 (2) SCR 603, S.R. Das, C.J.I. explained this rule in the following words:- "It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydon's case was decided that for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st What was the common law before the making of the Act, 2nd What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide, 3rd What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth, and 4th The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l rejects any application for revision under this section, the Tribunal shall record the reasons for such rejection." 14. It can thus be seen that under subsection (1) of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Commissioner on his own motion within five years from the date of any order passed by any officer appointed to assist him, could call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thought just and proper. The period of limitation of five years from the date of the order under revision was thus, related to the Act of the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of such order. This statutory provision came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in case of Jamnagar Motor Stores (supra). The Court was of the opinion that the limitation of five years would be attached to the exercise of the Commissioner for calling for and examining the order and the provision did not further require that the Commissioner himself also pass the final order thereon. The Court held and observed "The period of 5 years referred to in section 57 refers to initiation of the revisional proceeding. It is not necessary that the entire proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner on his own motion may exercise revisional powers within three years from the date of the order passed by a subordinate officer by calling for and examining the record of such order and can pass such order as he thinks fit and proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice for revision. This additional requirement of passing such order as he thinks proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision has been inserted by virtue of Amending Gujarat Act 10 of 1992. This, in our opinion, is a significant change. Earlier as interpreted by this Court in case of Jamnagar Motor Stores (supra), Commissioner was required to and call for and examine the record of an order within three years from the date of such order without there being any additional requirement of passing final order thereon within any specified time. Now the Legislature in order to obviate the difficulties of the assessee, has added a provision that such order would have to be passed within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision. The period of limitation of three years therefore must be seen in light of such important statutory change. It is true that the earlier p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tals & Minerals Ltd. (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held and observed as under: "16. The composition order under section 55A of the Act as noted hereinabove has been made on 31st March, 1998 and the impugned notice has been issued on 25th September, 2001 which is clearly beyond a period of three years from the date of the said order. Section 67 of the Act inter alia lays down that the Commissioner on his own motion within three years from the date of order passed by any officer appointed under section 27 to assist him, may call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision. In the facts of the present case, the impugned notice has clearly been issued after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, that is, the period of limitation prescribed under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 67 and as such, the same is apparently barred by limitation." 20. We respectfully concur with such view for which we have given our elaborate reasons. This judgment was brought to the notice of the Tribunal which never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
