TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the appellant submits that delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by administrative exigencies, which involved, obtaining comments of the Assessing Officer, legal advice and then permission from the Principal Secretary to Government, Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana. Counsel for the respondent has not filed any reply but has argued that administrative delays cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the averments in the application and are satisfied that administrative exigencies pleaded are sufficient to allow the application and condone delay in filing the appeal. Ordered accordingly. VATAP No. 172 of 2012 The State of Haryana is befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hree years, prescribed for reassessment, by the second proviso to sec tion 34(1) of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered by the second part of this proviso to invoke power conferred by section 34(1) of the Act if there is (i) a retrospective change in law; (ii) a decision of the Tribunal in a similar case; or (iii) a law is declared by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Thus, if any of the factors, referred to in the second part of second proviso to section 34(1) of the Act, exist, the Commissioner may exercise power to revise an assessment. The order passed by the Tribunal that as the Department always held the view that incidental charges are part of turnover, it was not justified in invoking the second part of second proviso to secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfying himself as to the legality or to the propriety of any proceeding or of any order made therein which is prejudicial to the interests of the State and may, after giving the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit: Provided that no order passed by a taxing authority shall be revised on an issue which on appeal or in any other proceeding from such order is pending before, or has been settled by, an appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be: Provided further that no order shall be revised after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the supply of the copy of such order to the assessee except where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cidental charges as part of turnover. Therefore, the learned revising authority cannot draw any assistance from the decision of the honourable High Court in FCI cases for overcoming the limitation. Section 34 of the HVAT Act deals with revision. The relevant part of the section reads, as under:- ... 'It is fairly plain from reading of the above provision that under the second proviso to section 34(1) of the HVAT Act, the time-limitation for passing an order of revision is three years from the date of supply of the copy of the order to be revised and there are only three exceptions to this. These are (i) retrospective change in law, (ii) decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, and (iii) law declared by the High Court or the Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion so recorded is legally flawed. Section 34(1) of the Act read along with the second proviso reveals that power to revise an assessment has to be exercised within three years from date of supply of a copy of the assessment order. The second part of the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Act, however, allows exercise of this power of revision beyond the period of three years, independent of the period of limitation provided by the first part of the second proviso and, therefore, cannot be read as an exception to the period of limitation of three years, prescribed by the first part of the second proviso. The power, so conferred can be exercised, after expiry of the period of three years on the occurrence of three separate events, nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Department held a similar view or that similar orders were passed before the judgment in Food Corporation of India's case [2010] 30 VST 47 (P&H); [2009] 33 PHT 632 (P&H), is irrelevant. The controversy with respect to incidental charges was finally settled by the High Court and, therefore, entitled the Commissioner to exercise power to revise an assessment even after expiry of the period of three years. The Tribunal's finding that as order could have been revised without waiting for the High Court, is based upon a misreading of the nature of power, conferred by the second part of the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Act. It would, therefore, be necessary to reiterate that power under section 34(1) of the Act to revise....