Court rules notice for revision time-barred under Bombay Sales Tax Act; distinguishes substantive and procedural laws.

The court held that the notice for suo motu revision issued beyond the prescribed three-year period was time-barred under the 3rd amendment to section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The court distinguished between substantive and procedural laws, emphasizing that substantive rights are determined at the initiation of proceedings, while procedural laws can apply to ongoing cases. The decision favored the applicants, ruling against the department and awarding costs to the applicants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for suo motu revision u/s 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Distinction between substantive and procedural laws.
3. Applicability of amendments to pending proceedings.
4. Interpretation of the law governing appeals and revisions.

Summary:

1. Limitation Period for Suo Motu Revision:
The core issue was whether the notice served on 14th March 1972, u/s 57 for suo motu revision was barred by limitation. The applicants filed their returns for the period 1st April 1964 to 31st March 1965, and the assessment order was passed on 20th April 1967. The Assistant Commissioner issued a revision notice on 1st March 1972 and revised the order on 30th April 1972. The Tribunal confirmed the Deputy Commissioner's order, reducing the disallowance.

2. Distinction Between Substantive and Procedural Laws:
The court distinguished between substantive laws, which determine rights and liabilities, and procedural laws, which govern the enforcement of those rights. Substantive rights get crystallized at the initiation of proceedings, while procedural laws can change and apply to ongoing proceedings.

3. Applicability of Amendments to Pending Proceedings:
The court discussed when assessment proceedings commence, noting that for registered dealers, proceedings start when returns are filed. The substantive rights of an assessee are determined by the law in force at the initiation of assessment proceedings. Procedural changes, however, apply to ongoing proceedings unless a right has already become time-barred under the old law.

4. Interpretation of the Law Governing Appeals and Revisions:
The right of appeal is considered a substantive right, crystallized at the initiation of assessment proceedings. The court held that the right to initiate suo motu revision proceedings is similar to a right of appeal. The law prescribing a period of limitation is procedural unless the right has already become time-barred under the old law.

Conclusion:
The relevant law at the time of issuing the notice for suo motu revision was the 3rd amendment to section 57, effective from 1st May 1970. The Commissioner was required to issue a notice within three years from the date of the communication of the assessment order. Since the notice dated 14th March 1972 was beyond this period, it was time-barred. The court answered the question in the negative, against the department, and awarded costs to the applicants.

---