9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act. The Full Bench of this Court in M/S.KHIMIJIBHAI MILLS [ 2000 (12) TMI 883 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] held that ' 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.' It is clear from the above that four years limitation prescribed under Section -64 of KVAT Act is to call for records and to initiate proceedings and not to pass final order. Conclusion - The limitation period under Section 64 of the KVAT Act pertains to the initiation of revisional proceedings, not the conclusion of such proceedings. Appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA For the Appellant: (by Sri. Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, Adv.). For the Respondents: (By Smt. Jyoti Maradi, HCGP). CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT) The assessee is in appeal under Section 66 (1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise any power after the expiry of 4 years. Further, learned counsel would submit that even if the proceedings is initiated within 4 years, it is not open for the Additional Commissioner to pass final order beyond 4 years under Section 64 (1) of the KVAT Act. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v/s M. RAMAKISHTAIAH AND CO., reported in (1994) 93 STC 406 (1994 SCC OnLine SC 3) and in A. VYKUNTAPPA SETTY CO., AND OTHERS v/s COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALORE reported in (1999) 112 STC 647 (1996 SCC OnLine SC 31.) Further, learned counsel would submit that though the notice under Section 64 (1) is dated 28.07.2021, the appellant received the notice only during August 2022 and reply is submitted immediately, in terms of Annexure-F dated 22.08.2022. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that notice dated 28.07.2021 issued to the appellant is antedated. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the orders under challenge. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the proceedings under Section 64 of the KVAT Act is initiated within 4 years from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od as he deems fit and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. (2) The Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer subordinate to him or the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings constituted under Section 60 is erroneous in so far 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 inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. (3) The Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner shall not exercise any power und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r computing limitation of 4 years and not service of notice or passing of order under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in M/S.KHIMIJIBHAI MILLS (supra) taking note of the decision in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v/s M.RAMAKISHTAIAH AND CO. (supra) at paragraphs 17, 23 and 24 has held as follows: 17. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments raised by Mr. Gandhi but are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the same. Legislative amendments of section 22-A from 1964-1992 would indicate that the Legislature has been using two types of phraseology at different points of time. From 1.1.64 to 31.12.67 the words were no order shall be made ......... after the expiry of 4 years from the date of the order sought to be revised. From 1.1.68 to 31.12.92 the words used were the power under sub-section (1) shall be exercisable only within a period of 4 years from the date of the order sought to be revised was passed . From 1.1.92 the Legislature reverted back to the words which were in operation from 1.1.64 to 31.1.67 and provided that the Joint Commissioner or Commissioner shall not pass any order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)............... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the time fixed under section 22-A(3) of the Act cannot be accepted. It becomes unworkable. For example, if the revisional authority calls for the records a month prior to the expiry of the period of 4 years, then the revisional authority cannot be expected to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order within one month after affording due opportunity to the assessee. This is not the intention of the Legislature. Whenever the Legislature had that intention, Legislature expressed it by saying that no order under section 22-A shall be made after the expiry of 4 years. Instead, the Legislature has now used the words exercise the powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) within a period of 4 years which means that initiation of proceedings has to be within a period of 4 years. Calling for records, examining them and passing such orders as deemed fit have rightly been held to be the facets of one single power, namely, the power to revise. Additional Commissioner/ Commissioner's power to call for records, examine them, and to pass such orders as he thinks fit are facets of the one single power, namely, the power of revision as held in Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 (My ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
