TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 17.08.1995 in Revision Application No. 2/94. Accordingly, a statement of case was drawn on 16.07.2004 referring the following question of law by way of Reference Application No. 11 of 1997: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that amendment in section 67(1)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 with effect from 7/4/1992 which requires that an order in suo motu revision proceedings initiated by the revision authority should be passed within the twelve months from the date of service of notice for revision is not applicable to such pending proceedings wherein notice for revision in form No. 49 has been issued prior to 7/4/1992 and proceedings are still p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of amendment u/s 67(1)(a). He submitted that the same was passed after the period of limitation was over as prescribed under newly amended section 67(1)(a) of the Act. 3.1 Mr. Modh submitted that Section 67(1)(a) of the Act has been amended with effect from 07.04.1992 whereas in the present case the notice was issued on 08.07.1991 and the proceedings were concluded and decided by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 16.08.1993. He submitted that even if the date of amendment is taken into consideration, the revision application ought to have been decided on or before 06.04.1993 which is not done in the present case and therefore the order was barred by limitation. 3.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Modh has relied upon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper [within twelve months from the date of service of notice for revision] (b) *** ***" 5.1 From the above it is clear that Section 67(1)(a) was amended on 07.04.1992 and as per the amending provision, the revisional authority is bound to pass revisional order within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision. In the present case, notice in form 49 was served upon the applicant on 08.07.1991 and the impugned order was passed on 16.08.1993 which is after a period of two years. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd (supra) has held as under: "7. Having heard the arguments of the parties and after conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken away, whereas in the instant case by the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G, the credit in the account of a manufacturer was not taken away but only the manner and the time within which the said credit was to be taken or utilized alone was stipulated. It is to be noted at this juncture that the substantive right has not been taken away by the introduction of the proviso to the Rule in question but a procedural restriction was introduced which, in our opinion, is permissible in law. Therefore, in our opinion, the law laid down by this Court in Eicher's case (supra) does not apply to the facts of these cases. This is also the position with regard to the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune & Ors. V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t after six months from the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to the said sub-rule. A plain reading of this sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those cases where a manufacturer is seeking to take the credit after the introduction of the Rule and to cases where the manufacturer is seeking to do so after a period of six months from the date when the manufacturer received the inputs. This sub-rule does not operate retrospectively in the sense it does not cancel the credits nor does it in any manner affect the rights of those persons who have already taken the credit before coming into force of the Rule in question. It operates prospectively in regard to those manufacturers who seek to take credit after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation is concerned, it is obvious that the old section cannot apply after the Amendment Act since the entire old section was substituted by the new section and what we are concerned with in the present case is the application of the well-settled rule of law that limitation is a matter of procedure and unless there is something in the context or by express words the legislature has expressed it, new period of limitation would always apply to pending proceedings as well. Under these circumstances, at least on one out of the two alternatives, the position is very clear, namely, that the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was within limitation." 6.2 The decision in the case of M. Ravji shall not be applicable on the facts ....