9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilk P. Union Limited [2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. It was observed that even if no period of limitation is provided under the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction that does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time. Five years period was held to be the final limit - the notice issued for revising the assessment after more than 20 years certainly deserves to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Limited (2007) 10 VST 180. It was observed that even if no period of limitation is provided under the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction that does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time. Five years period was held to be the final limit. Notice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion being a jurisdictional question, the writ petition was maintainable. 25. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the writ court would not entertain the writ application questioning validity of a notice only, particularly, when the writ petitioner would have an effective remedy under the Act itself. This case, however, poses a different question. The Revisional Authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
