TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper interpretation is given that the proceedings are to conclude and revision orders passed within a period specified in the Rule - the entire Rule 80 cannot be read in a disjoined manner. On reading of the Rule in a joint manner would make it clear that for revising an order within a period of three years after providing opportunity to the assessee and calling for the records, the revision order itself has to be passed within a period of three years. Passing of the order dated 05.09.1996 in Annexure-3 which was beyond the period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, is liable to be quashed as also the order of the Commissioner dated 05.06.1999 in Annexure-4 - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.2 initiated a proceeding under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules to revise the reassessment already made, vide order dated 25.08.1993, in the year 1990-91 and held, by order dated 05.09.1996, that claim for exemption made by the petitioner is not allowed and that the entire claim of exemption on the said transaction was put to sales tax under the Central Act. Against the said revisional order dated 05.09.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal before opposite party no.1, who dismissed the same by order dated 05.06.1999 without assigning any reason, hence this application. 2. Sri J. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner raised various questions, but confined his argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. 5. The fact delineated above being undisputed, for just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, it may be proper to reproduce the relevant Section 23(4)(a) of the O.S.T. Act and the relevant Rule-80 of the O.S.T.Rules. 23. Appeal and Revisionxxx xxx xxx (4) (a) Subject to such rules as may be made and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner may, upon application by a dealer (or person) or on his own motion revise any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any person other than the Tribunal, appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 to assist him : Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any such applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 80 of the O.S.T.Rules wherein the limitation for the suo motu revision has been provided for. 7. The power of the Commissioner to revise an order either on application by the dealer on his own motion has been provided for under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the O.S.T.Act which is subject to limitation provided under Rule 80 of the Rules. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings for revision. 8. The only question which remains for determination of this Court is as to whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed within a period of three years. 12. The decision of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Nilei Sahoo, (1961) XII STC 728 as relied on by Dr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same has been rendered while interpreting the provisions of Section 12(7) of the OST Act which only dealt with the re opening of the assessment within a period of 36 months and there was no mention in the said Section with regard to passing of the of the final order within a period of 36 months. As such, since the wordings of Section 12(7) of the O.S.T.Act as then stood are distinct from those of Rule 80 of the Rules which is interpreted in this case. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|