2013 (12) TMI 1078

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of the Commissioner for exercising suo motu power of revision against the order Annexure-P/2, dated 31-01-2012, which was declined on the ground that under Section 47 of the M.P. Vat Act, 2002 there is no such provision for invoking powers of suo motu revision at the instance of the assessee. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the words used in Section 47 of the VAT Act "on his own motion" includes at the instance of the assessee. In support of his contention he has referred to the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in Pankaj Motors & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) 67 VST 463 (P&H) and submitted that this writ petition may be entertain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revise any order under this sub-section,- (i) where an appeal against the order is pending before the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Board or where, if such appeal lies, the time within which it may be filed has not expired; or (ii) where such order relates to determination of the liability of a dealer to pay tax or where a notice is issued under this Act for assessment or reassessment order is passed. (iii)where such order is passed under Section 34. Explanation - An order by the Commissioner, declining interference shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the dealer or person." The aforesaid provision specifically provides that the Commissioner on his own motion may call for the record of the proceeding in w....