TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment of Himachal Pradesh in its the then prevailing industrial policy and corresponding exemptions granted under the Act. 4. As per the Industrial Incentive Rules dt. 12.04.1971, the State Government has decided not to charge any sales tax from the industrial units in the State of Himachal Pradesh at least for first five years of their coming into production. 5. While implementing the said decision, a statutory notification dt. 27.05.1974 had been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 42(1) of the Act. 6. Having regard to the Industrial Incentive Rules dt. 12.04.1971 and the above statutory notification dt. 27.05.1974 issued under Section 42(1) of the Act, the appellant did not collect tax from customer and accordingly returned the sales without any tax. 7. The Government of Himachal Pradesh on 05.07.1978 issued another notification superseding the notification dt. 27.5.1974 and also another notification dt. 5.4.1976, and provided for levy of sales tax on products manufactured by new small scale industrial units@ 2.5% for first five years and @ 4.5% for the next five years in respect of goods subject to such tax upto the rate of 11% and stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision in Kundan Lal Ahuja (supra-1), there is a direction that though regular assessment with tax effect in terms of the H.P. Government notification dt. 05.07.1978 was directed to be framed while granting stay, the Supreme Court had stayed the recovery against Bank guarantee of equal amount to be furnished by the dealer and the Assessing Authority therefore sought to justify its notice dt. 02.12.1994 on the said basis. 20. The applicant's representative contended that the applicant was registered as a SSI Unit in the year 1977-78 and incentives once granted to the dealer cannot be withdrawn as per the decision in Kundan Lal Ahuja (supra-1); that coercive method to recover this amount cannot be adopted by the Department; issuing notice to the applicant for giving Bank guarantee would amount to resort to coercive methods and; that the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills (supra-2) has held that a concession once granted cannot be curtailed or discontinued. The order dt.8.12.1994 of the assessing authority 21. This plea of the applicant was accepted by the Assessing Authority through an order dt. 08.12.1994 and it was held that in view of the decision in Pournami Oil Mills (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Authority dt. 8.12.1994. Order dt.6.7.2007 of the Financial Commissioner in Revision no. 3 of 2002 26. The aforesaid order was challenged by the applicant before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revision no. 3 of 2002 which was confirmed on 06.07.2007. Application of the applicant for making reference under Section 33(1) of the Act 27. Thereafter Reference application was moved by the applicant before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 33(1) of the Act on 12.09.2007 and the same was forwarded to this Court by the Chairperson of the H.P. Tax Tribunal, Kangra and the Reference application came to be numbered as STR 2 of 2012. The questions referred to this Court 28. In the Reference application made by the Chairperson of the H.P. Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala, he referred the following three questions to this Court:- (i) Whether the Revisional Authority exercising the power under section 31 of the HPGST Act, 1968 i.e suo-motu revision can act upon the application filed by the assessing authority passing the order and can the Revisional Authority revise the orders after the elapse of 5 years in view of provisions of Section 20 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Contentions of counsel for the applicant 31. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that suo-motu revisional powers have be exercised within a reasonable time and it was not open to the Revisional Authority to seek to exercise the said powers through a notice dt. 14.11.2000 to suo-motu revise the order passed on 08.12.1994 by the Assessing Authority. 32. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha & others- (1969) 2 SCC 187, State of Punjab & others Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.,- (2007) 11 SCC 363 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & another Vs. D Narsing Rao & others- (2015) 3 SCC 695. Contentions of Respondents 33. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the assessment orders in question for the period w.e.f. 1980-81 till 1987-88 had not been challenged at all by the applicant, that the same had attained finality, and the Assessing Authority was not right in taking the view in his order dt. 08.12.1994 that the applicant cannot even be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in State of Orissa vs. Debaki Debi - AIR 1964 SC 1413, wherein it had taken the view that under Section 12(6) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, 36 months' time was considered to be the period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 38. This principle was re-iterated in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District (supra-7).In that case it was held that the action of the State Government invoking the suo-motu revisional power under Section 166(B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 F for cancellation of entries in khasra pahani for the year 1954- 55 is not permissible after more than 50 years had elapsed after the entries having been made despite the fact that the said provision did not prescribe any period of limitation. 39. It is clear from the above precedents that suo-motu revisional power should be exercised within a reasonable time, even if the provision does not prescribe any limitation for exercise of such power. 40. In the instant case the order passed on 08.12.1994 by the 2nd respondent was sought to be revised suo-motu by the 1st respondent on 14.11.2000, almost six years after the said order was passed. 41. Even taking the....