TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (5) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....July, 1960, after notice to the respondent. Acting on this order, the Sales Tax Officer framed a fresh assessment against the respondent on 24th September, 1960, and on that basis made a demand for Rs. 3,202.47 as sales tax. This led the respondent to challenge the proceedings by way of two writ petitions in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi. By way of Civil Writ Petition No. 388-D of 1960 the revisional order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was challenged and by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 460-D of 1960, the consequential assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and the demand created thereby was challenged. These two writ petitions were eventually accepted by a learned single Judge (Hardy, J., as he then was) on 2nd April, 1969. The order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax exercising revisional powers was quashed on the ground that he could not exercise those powers beyond four years of the end of the assessment year in question, i.e., the last date for passing the revisional order was held to be 31st March, 1960. Consequently, the other writ petition was also accepted and the consequential assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was quashed. The Union of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case on or before 31st March, 1960, the Sales Tax Officer could have taken advantage of the proviso to make the order of assessment. Thus, the only question we have now to deal with is, whether there is in fact a time-limit for passing a revisional order under section 20(3) of the Act. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor-General, has urged that the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi [1964] 15 S.T.C. 153 (S.C.)., must be restricted in its operation to the special circumstances of that case. The provisions, which were in question there, were those of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The main provision of that Act, which was the subject-matter of the decision, was the second proviso to section 12(6) of the Act. That sub-section can conveniently be reproduced here: "(6) Any assessment made under this section shall be without prejudice to any prosecution instituted for an offence under this Act: Provided that when the Collector has imposed a penalty in addition to the amount assessed under this section, no further proceedings either revenue or criminal shall be taken against the dealer: Provided further that no order assessing the amount of tax due from a d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant that the language of section 11(2a) is very different from the language of section 12(6). It is particularly mentioned that no order under section 11(1) can be passed after the prescribed period of 4 years. Thus, the limit of period being specified and for specific purposes, cannot be transported and attached to some other provisions of the Act like section 20, which deals with the appellate and revisional powers. It is pointed out that it is not essential that there should be a period of limitation. It is for the statute to fix a limitation or leave it open to the officer concerned to exercise the revisional power whenever it likes. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent stresses that the power to assess which is exercised by the appellate and revisional authorities is also exercised under section 11(1) of the Act, and not under section 20. For this purpose reliance is placed on the aforementioned decision in Debaki Debi's case[1964] 15 S.T.C. 153 (S.C.). We have also been referred to Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay[1968] 21 S.T.C. 383 (S.C.); [1968] 2 S.C.R. 492., which was a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent can be made within a period of four years from the end of the year in question, i.e., the original assessment in the present case could be made up to 31st March, 1960. An appeal or revision against such an order would have to be instituted under section 20 of the Act. That provision visualises an appeal under section 20(1) to the appellate authority and further revision under sub-section (3). Clearly, such an appeal may be heard after the period of four years prescribed in section 11(2a) has expired. For instance, if the final assessment is made towards the end of the four years' period mentioned in section 11(2a), the appeal is likely to be heard after that period has expired. If the restriction of four years applies also to the appellate authority, it would not be able to exercise jurisdiction at all. Subsection (2) of section 20 sets out the power of the appellate authority. It may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment. Any order passed by the appellate authority will necessarily result in a fresh assessment order. There is nothing in the section to restrict the time to be taken by the appellate authority i....