TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned in this appeal with the assessment of the respondent for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Liability of the respondent to pay such taxes has been assessed by the Assessing Officer by passing assessment orders for the aforesaid two years. Subsequent thereto, notices were issued by the Appellants seeking to reopen the orders of assessment by exercising the powers vested in the authority under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, which reads as follows:- SECTION-40 [Revision] (1) [The Commissioner may on his own motion] call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, [any officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed in the Section had expired. 5. The respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing of the notice dated 22.1.2007. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, a statement was made that the respondent took a specific objection saying that assessment for the year 1995-96 could have been finalised by 28.3.2005 and for year 1996-97 by 31.7.2005 respectively and that since those orders have not been passed within the time limit prescribed, therefore, the revisional proceedings drawn up against them could not be proceeded with further and the said proceedings have to be dropped. 6. The specific stand, therefore, of the respondent in the writ court was that since the Commissioner under Section 40 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been allowed to be continued and brought to a logical end. 8. It, however, appears to us that the said issue was not argued by the Appellants or the Respondent herein before the High Court nor the writ Court considered and discussed the aforesaid issue which according to us also is very relevant and vital. 9. Whether the expression appearing in proviso that no order would be revised after a period of five years from the date of the order would mean that the final order of suo motu revision to be passed before expiry of five years period under Section 41 of the Act or it contemplates only initiation of such a proceeding requires consideration since it goes to the root of the dispute between the parties. 10. Since the said issue has no....