TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N NO. 22286 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22287 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22288 of 2017 For The Petitioner : Uchit N Sheth (7336) For The Respondent : Mr. Kamal trivedi, ld. Advocate general, with MR. Chintan Dave, AGP (99) COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This group of petitions involves similar facts and identical question of law. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. In all material aspects, facts being common, we may record facts as arising in Special Civil Application No.22283 of 2017 which are as under. 2. Petition is filed by Reliance Industries Limited challenging a notice dated 03.11.2017 issued by the Add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court by reversing the judgment of the High Court, held and observed as under: "19) The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that reduction of 4% would be applied whenever a case gets covered by subclause (ii) and again when subclause (iii) is attracted. 20) This, however, would be subject to one limitation. In those cases where VAT paid on such raw material is 4%, as in the case of furnace oil, reduction cannot be more than that. After all, Section 11 deals with giving credit in respect of tax that is paid. Therefore, if some reduction is to be made from the said credit, it cannot be more than the credit given. Thus, so far as furnace oil is concerned, tax credit shall be reduced by 4%. On the other han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year from the date of any order passed by any officer appointed under section 16 to assist him, may call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper [within five years from the date of the said order of the officer appointed under section 16 to assist him.] (b) The Tribunal, on application made to it against an order of the Commissioner (not being an order passed under subsection (2) of section 73 in second appeal or under clause (a) in revision on an application) within four months from the date of the communication of the order may call for and examine the record of any such order, and pass such order thereon as it thinks just and proper. (2) Where an appeal lies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ides that the order of revision could be passed within five years from the date of the order taken in revision. There is nothing on record to suggest that in the present cases, the Additional Commissioner had called for the record of the assessment of the petitioner for the particular year within three years of the date of the order so as to enable him to exercise the revisional powers. In fact, looking to the tenor of the notice of revision it was not even possible for him to have done so. This is because the order of assessment was passed on 30.03.2013. Period of limitation would therefore expire on 30.03.2016. The judgment of the Supreme Court, to which, reference is made and reliance placed in the notices for revision was delivered on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper within 12 months from the date of service of notice of revision. In the facts of the present case, the impugned notice has clearly been issued after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, that is, the period of limitation prescribed under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 67 and as such, the same is apparently barred by limitation." 9. In case of M/s Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (GH) vide judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed in Tax Appeal No.38 of 2007, the Division Bench once again in the context of the provisions of section 67 of the Sales Tax Act, observed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examine the record of the case since the Commissioner issued the notice to the petitioner calling for the information from the petitioner in this respect after the period of three years." 11. In context of section 75 of the VAT Act, Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2017, passed in Special Civil Application No.6928 of 2017, had observed as under: "[2.1] It is not in dispute that the respondent herein M/s. Khadi Gram Udhyog Sangh, Rajkot was granted the certificate of entitlement for the period between 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2012 by the Commercial Tax Officer dated 18/02/2010. It is not in dispute that the same came to be cancelled by the revisional authority vide order dated 12/08/2013. It is not in dispute th....