TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act against the order dated August 9, 2006 passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Hoshiarpur, revising the assessment of the appellant in exercise of suo motu revisional power under section 21(1) of the Act, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that for assessment year 1996-97, the assessment of the assessee was framed by the Assessing Officer on March 27, 2000 and the assessee was allowed the refund of Rs. 90,702 on account of excess purchase tax deposited by him. This refund was granted to the assessee while coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase of paddy out of which rice manufactured by the assessee was sent out of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revision before the VAT Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Before the VAT Tribunal, the assessee challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the revisional authority could not have exercised suo motu power under section 21(1) of the Act for re-opening of the assessment after expiry of the period of six years, particularly when the reason recorded in the notice was known to the department even in the year 2000 as the decision in Veerumal Monga's case [2001] 123 STC 158 (P&H); [2000] 16 PHT 304 (P&H) was rendered on July 13, 2000. Thus, there was no justification with the revisional authority in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under section 21(1) of the Act in April, 2006 after expiry of more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able period has to be decided in facts of each case for which no hard and fast rule could be laid down." Learned counsel submitted that applying the above principles to the present case, the revisional authority was not justified to revise the assessment order dated March 27, 2000 after the expiry of more than six years, particularly when the ground on which the revision was made was available in the year 2000 itself. Learned counsel for the appellant further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007] 10 VST 180, wherein the aforesaid judgment of this court was upheld while observing that the revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2000 given by this court in Veerumal Monga's case [2001] 123 STC 158; [2000] 16 PHT 304, the purchase tax was leviable on the paddy out of which rice manufactured by the assessee was sent out of India, though the said judgment was known to the department in the year 2000 itself. Section 21 of the Act gives the revisional jurisdiction to the Commissioner, "who may of his own motion call for the record of any proceedings which are pending before, or have been disposed of by any authority subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit". The said power of the Commissioner by notification issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore than five years, was held to be unreasonable. Undisputedly, in the present case, the revising authority revised the order of assessment dated March 27, 2000 after the expiry of more than six years only on the ground that as per the decision in Veerumal Monga's case [2001] 123 STC 158; [2000] 16 PHT 304, the dealer (assessee) was liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy and the assessing officer had wrongly ordered the refund of the excess purchase tax while coming to the conclusion that the dealer was not liable to pay the purchase tax on the paddy out of which rice manufactured by the assessee was sent out of India. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revising authority was not justified in exercisin....