9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and Smt. Jyothi Maradi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents-Revenue. Perused the entire appeal papers. 4. The brief facts of the case are that: The appellant is a Company, incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and is a registered Dealer under the KVAT Act. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2014-15. For the said assessment year, respondent No. 2 passed re-assessment order under Section 39 (1) of KVAT Act and the appellant is said to have paid tax liability imposed under re-assessment order dated 31.07.2019. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 also passed order on 23.07.2019 under Sections 36 and 37 of the KVAT Act for payment of interest on delayed payment of tax liability under order dated 31.07.2017. Thereafter, notice dated 28.07.2021 was issued to the appellant under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act. The appellant is said to have submitted reply on 22.08.2022. Thereafter, revised notice under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act is said to have been issued on 23.02.2023 and the appellant is said to have submitted reply on 18.03.2023. The impugned order came to be passed on 22.05.2023 and fresh demand notice dated 21.07.2023 is issued. Challenging both the orders, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in ILR 2001 KAR 520 submits that, Full Bench of this Court taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on which learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance, held that it would be sufficient if the records are called and proceedings is initiated within 4 years. Further, learned HCGP would submit that notice sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due to the same address in which, the appellant has registered his Dealership, returned with postal shara "Addressee Not Found". Moreover, she submits that e-mail sent was served on the same day. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. During the course of hearing, we directed the learned HCGP to produce original records so as to find out whether the proceedings or notice issued to the appellant, in terms of Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act is within 4 years. Accordingly, learned HCGP made available the original records, which we have perused. 8. Though the appellant in the memorandum of appeal has raised three substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant has pressed only substantial question of law No.1, which reads as follows: "Whether the Additional Commissioner can pass an order under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." 4. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that on calling and examining record of any order passed or proceedings recorded under the KVAT Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any Officer, who is not above the rank of Joint Commissioner, is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order. 11. Sub-Section (3) would state that the Additional Commissioner or Commissioner shall not exercise any power under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) beyond the time stated therein, i.e., more than 4 years after passing of the order sought to be revised. In other words, the Additional Commissioner shall call for records, examine and take a decision as to revise or otherwise the order passed by the subordinate officer or authority, within 4 years, which would mean, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A close reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 22-A would indicate that the Additional Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, on his own motion, can call for and examine the records of any proceedings under the Act, if he considers that any order passed by any officer subordinate to him is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Firstly, the power that can be exercised is to call for and examine the records; secondly, if necessary, to stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit; thirdly, after giving an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. These three powers were described in Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 (Mys.) to be the three facets of the same power. The Commissioner exercises his power to revise the order of the subordinate authority as soon as he calls for the record of the proceedings of the subordinate authority. Limitation prescribed in the section is for initiation of the proceedings to revise and not to the passing of the final order revising the order of the subordinate auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an exercise of power to initiate the proceedings and not concluding the same as well. As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the limitation for conclusion of the proceedings has now been provided by section 22-B, introduced by Act 7 of 1997. The earlier words used by the Legislature was "..............shall be exercisable only within a period of 4 years" and now the words used are "................shall not exercise any power" which, though to be in negative form, is in substance the same. Emphasis in the earlier provision was in affirmative terms to exercise the power only within 4 years, whereas now the emphasis is in the negative terms by saying that the authority shall not exercise the power beyond the period of 4 years. There is no material difference either to the exercise of the power to revise or to the period of limitation prescribed. 24. For the reasons stated above, we reiterate the view expressed by this Court in Subba Rao case [1967] 19 STC 257 (Mys.), Busunur Industries case [1986] 61 STC 123 and Satyanarayana Engineering Works case [1999] 112 STC 578 and answer the question referred thus: "That section 22-A envisages and provides for limitation of a period of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
