1985 (2) TMI 245 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Commissioner's suo motu revisional proceedings upheld under Karnataka Sales Tax Act

The court upheld the validity of the suo motu revisional proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, finding that calling for records within the four-year ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the suo motu revisional proceedings completed beyond the period of four years.2. Interpretation of Section 22-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 regarding the period of limitation.3. Whether the records were called for purposes of revision under Section 22-A of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Suo Motu Revisional Proceedings Completed Beyond the Period of Four Years:The primary contention by the assessee was that the suo motu revisional proceedings completed beyond the period of four years from the date of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) were barred by time, illegal, and impermissible under Section 22-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee argued that the revisional power could only be exercised within four years from the date of the order sought to be revised, and any action beyond this period was invalid.2. Interpretation of Section 22-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957:The court examined the scope and ambit of Section 22-A of the Act, focusing on the period of limitation regulated by sub-section (2). Section 22-A(2) stipulates that the power under sub-section (1) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The court interpreted that the power of revision is judicial or quasi-judicial and must be initiated by calling for the records. The initiation of the proceedings by calling for the records within the four-year period satisfies the requirement of Section 22-A(2). The court emphasized that the term 'shall be exercisable' refers to the commencement of the exercise of power and not its completion. Therefore, the act of calling for records within the four-year period is sufficient to initiate the revisional proceedings.3. Whether the Records Were Called for Purposes of Revision Under Section 22-A of the Act:The court reviewed the records of the office of the Commissioner, which showed that on 19th August 1975, the Commissioner had called for the records of the DC specifically for purposes of revision under Section 22-A of the Act. This action was deemed sufficient to initiate the revisional proceedings within the stipulated period. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the records were called for other purposes and not for revision, as the records clearly indicated the intent for revision.Conclusion:The court upheld the validity of the suo motu revisional proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, concluding that the initiation by calling for records within the four-year period satisfied the requirements of Section 22-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The court found no merit in the assessee's contention regarding the period of limitation and the purpose for which the records were called. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner restoring the order of the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) was affirmed. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.