9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The aforesaid provision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others [ 2001 (8) TMI 1239 - SUPREME COURT] . and Their Lordships while considering the scope and meaning of the word initiate under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have held that in the case of suo motu proceedings, contempt proceeding must be initiated by the court by issuing a notice and in other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. Further, the Supreme Court clearly held that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, action can be initiated, either by filing an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court what is required and condition precedent for initiation of proceeding by invoking Section 49 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005, would be initiation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-2-2017. The order of assessment was passed against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner on 23-1-2013 raising a demand of ₹ 1,04,28,346/-. Thereafter, order dated 29-7-2013 was passed declining to impose penalty under Section 54 of the Act, 2005. Thereafter, on 26-12-2016, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax issued notice to the petitioner under Section 49 (3) of the Act, 2005 exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction to impose penalty against the petitioner under Section 49 (3) of the Act, 2005. The petitioner herein claiming that the notice dated 26-12-2016 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax is in teeth of proviso to Section 49 (3) of the Act, 2005, has filed this petition stating inter alia that such a proceeding is barred, as proviso (a) to Section 49 (3) provides that no proceeding shall be initiated under Section 49 (3) after the expiry of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. 2. Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would submit that the order imposing penalty in a proceeding under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the expiry of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to be revised. 6. The first and foremost question for consideration is, when the proceeding is deemed to have been initiated under Section 49 (3) of the Act, 2005. 7. The word initiate or initiation has not been defined in the Act, 2005. Since it has not been defined in the Act, it would be appropriate to refer the dictionary meaning of the word initiate . In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word initiate has been defined as to begin or set going; make a beginning of; perform or facilitate the first actions, steps or stages of. Likewise, in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word initiate has been defined as to begin, commence, enter upon; to introduce, set going, originate. 8. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines the words initiate and initiative as under: - Initiate : Commence; start; originate; introduce; inchoate. Curtesy initiate is the interest which a husband has in the wife's lands after a child is born who may inherit, but before the wife dies. To propose for approval as schedule of rates. Idaho Power Co. v. Thompson, D.C. Idaho, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, and observed in its report as under: - 44. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 12. Likewise, in the matter of Advocate General, A.P., Hyderabad v. A.V. Koteswara Rao 1984 Cri.L.J. 1171, the Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, CJ AIR 1974 SC 2255 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, and in the instant case, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction applied its mind to the facts of the case, it appears, on or before 26-12-2016 and issued notices to the petitioner on 26- 12-2016. Therefore, the proceeding is deemed to have been initiated on or before 26-12-2016 before completion of three calendar years from the date of imposing penalty i.e. 29-7-2013. Alleged receipt of notice by the petitioner would not amount to initiation of proceeding, as the proceeding under Section 49 (3) of the Act, 2005 has already been initiated on or before 26-12-2016 well within the time prescribed in the statute. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the notice dated 26-12-2016 issued by the revisional authority is without jurisdiction and without authority of law sans merit. The judgments cited by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, viz., State of Punjab and others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 (Joseph Jacob v. Agricultural I.T.O. 1990 SCC OnLine Ker 482 and Commissioner of Agricultural Income- Tax v. Kappumalai Estate 1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker),, are not applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
