TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee order dated 15.1.2013 in this petition. When the matters were taken up by this Court on 22.1.2013, some important facts came to the notice of this Court, upon which, this Court passed a detailed order and directed the revisional authority the CommissionerCumSecretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur to place before this Court the facts and figures of yearwise pendency of the revision petitions pending before the revisional authority and also to disclose that in how many revision petitions, initial date has not been fixed for the period more than six months. In response to the order dated 22.1.2013, both the above authorities have filed the counter affidavit. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order dated 22.1.2013 :" Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Revenue, it was the duty of the applicant in revisional petition to press for interim relief before the revisional authority which has not been done by the petitioner which appears from the facts of the case which indicate that the revision petition has been filed in the year 2010 and the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, as well as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, are directed to state and place before this Court the yearwise pendency of the revision petition before the revisional authority, and also directed to place on record that in how many revision petitions initial date has been fixed for the period more than six months." 2. It appears from the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who has filed the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.1revisional authority that in a large number of revision petitions notices (total 374) have been served upon large number of revision petitioners by publication of notices in newspapers. Notices for above 374 revisions pending upto since last twelve years were published between 04.12.2012 to 03.02.2013 only. By first publication, notices were published in the news papers for 30 revision petitions which is pending since 2001 to 2004. In second advertisement in the news paper, notices were issued for 58 revision petitions of the year 2004. By third advertisement, notices for 50 revision petitions were published for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2005 and the appeal was dismissed in the year 2008 and revision petition was preferred in the year 2010 and admittedly there was no interim order in favour of the assessee since the year 2010. Therefore, the revenue itself was not serious in recovery of the State dues for almost eight years if, there was no stay during the pendency of the appeal and if, there was stay, then in that situation, the revenue was not serious in recovery of the revenue for almost three years. Then, the assessing officer, after about three years, straightway issued the garnishee order dated 15.1.2013. It appears that the revenue since is having a very strong weapon in their hands, therefore, the revenue is under the impression that such weapon can be used arbitrarily and at any time suitable to their whims even in a case where business of running concern may crippled or it may deprive a large number of employees even from their the salary. There are catena of authorities, wherein it has been made clear that in what circumstances harsh orders can be passed in the matter of recovery of revenue and when they should not be passed. The issue involved in these petitions are of two folds; one with respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the learned counsel for the revenue, the revisional authority is the administrative head of the department and he has to discharge administrative function in the revenue matters in the entire State of Jharkhand because of the reason that, once the right is given to any assessee to challenge the order may be by preferring appeal or may be by revision, then there must be some system and known procedure for taking up the matters and that is the duty of the appellate and the revisional authority which is not dependent upon any effort of the assessee who has preferred the appeal or revision. We have already observed in our order dated 22.01.2013 that the Court and Tribunals are not dependent upon the zeal and efforts of the litigants to manage Court's or Tribunal's affairs and the authority in power is suppose to manage their own affairs and to decide the case according to their own managing system uninfluenced by the inaction of the litigants and that is also the theme of the National Litigation Policy which has been adopted by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. 7.This Court also came across a large number of matters coming to the Courts only because ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of M.L. Narasimha Gupta Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore & Ors. reported in 75 STC 154, and another judgment of Division of Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered in the case of AnabeShahi Wines and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors. reported in 98 STC 386 and another judgment of Madras High Court delivered in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore & Ors. reported in (2008) 17 VST 32 (Mad. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1348 of 2012 in the case of Tata Cummins Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & another dated 14.03.2012 and other orders. In sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority is not only not entertaining any prayer for interim relief for years together, and this Court in the case of W.P. (T) No. 5585 of 2012 in the case of M/s Sai International Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 18.09.2012, finding the same situation of non consideration of prayer for interim relief of the ass....