9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 4808 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2007 - S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, JJ. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate (Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Davesh Tripathi and Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocates with him), for the respondent. Ajay Pal, Ms. Preeti Singh and Ms. Sukhla, Advocates, for the appellants. [Judgment per : S.B. Sinha, J.]. - Leave granted. 2.What should be the reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22-12-2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 15477 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed against a notice dated 4-9-2006 issued by Revisional Authority-cum-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Bhatinda to the respondent was allowed. 3.Before embarking upon the said question, we may notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment may by notification confer on any Officer the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) to be exercised subject to such conditions and in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification. (3) A Tribunal, on application made to it against an order of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) within ninety days from the date of communication of the order, may call for and examine the record of any such case and pass such orders thereon as it thinks just and proper. (4) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 6.The authority issued notice upon the respondent to show cause as to why the proposed action under Section 21(1) of the Act be not taken on the premise that "illegalities, irregularities and improprieties", as enumerated therein had been found in the order of assessment dated 20-3-2001. Cause was to be shown on 14-9-2006. Respondent neither appeared before the revisional authority nor filed any show cause. 7.It filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs : "(i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded for in the Schedule appended thereto. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the respondent filed returns for all the quarters for the year ending 31-3-2000. It also stands admitted that the assessment proceedings were completed on 28-3-2001. 13.Indisputably, books of accounts and other relevant documents were taken into consideration by the assessing authority while passing the order of assessment. 14.Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provided for a three years limitation. We may notice that the said period of limitation was introduced by reason of Punjab Act No. 12 of 1998 and prior thereto a period of five years was prescribed therefor. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 also provides for a three years' limitation. Sub-section (6) of Section 11 which is the residuary provision provides for five years' limitation. 15.Sub-section (1) of Section 11 empowers the Commissioner to extend the period of three years for passing the order of assessment wherefor reasons are required to be recorded in writing subject, however, to the maximum period of five years. Ordinarily, therefore, a period of three years has been prescribed for completion of the assessment in terms of the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell be that for an exercise of the suo motu power of revision also, the revisional authority has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What is a reasonable time, however, will depend upon the facts of each case." 21.Our attention has been drawn to a decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa Anr. v. M/s. Halari Store etc. [(1997) 7 SCC 715] wherein this Court, while considering the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, held : "... But, the same is not the position where the Commissioner decides to exercise his suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate order. Significantly the words "on his own motion" occurring in the enactment are conspicuously present in the proviso the legislature has excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an appellate order if invoked at the instance of a dealer or a person when such dealer or person has a remedy by way of an appeal. As noticed earlier, the limitation on the suo motu power of the Commissioner as to revise an appellate order has not been expressly provided in the proviso. In the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
