STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAMNAGAR MOTOR STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law referred to in these references is identical and, therefore, we shall dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) IT is not necessary to state the facts in detail in respect of these references. We will narrate shortly and broadly the necessary facts. The Sales Tax Officer in these references passed an order of assessment against the opponents herein relating to the turnover in respect of a particular year. The Assistant Commissioner invoked his revisional power in these references within the period of 5 years. The final orders in revision were passed by the Assistant Commissioner after a period of 5 years. IT was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessees that the orders revising the assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner were illegal because it was necessary under the law that the final orders revising the assessment should have been passed within the period of 5 years. The Tribunal accepted the said argument and at the instance of the State has referred the following question for our determination, namely, whether on the correct interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the period of limitation of 5 years prescribed for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner on his own motion, applies only to the calling of the record of any order of any officer appointed under section 20 to assist him, or also applies to the examination of such record and passing such order thereon as he thinks just and proper. The answer to the question depends upon the correct interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the section is as under : " 57. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 56 and to any rules which may be made in this behalf, - (a) the Commissioner of his own motion within five years from the date of any order passed by any officer appointed under section 20 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; (b) the Tribunal, on application made to it against an order of the Commissioner not being an order passed under sub-section (2) of section 55 in second appeal 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 under section 55 and no appeal has been filed, no proceedings in revision under this section shall be entertained upon application. (3) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person, unless such person has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) If the Tribunal rejects any application for revision under this section, the Tribunal shall record the reasons for such rejection. "

(3.) WE, therefore, answer the question which has been referred to us holding that on the correct interpretation of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the period of limitation of 5 years prescribed for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner on his own motion applies only to the calling of the record of any order of any officer appointed under section 20 to assist him and it is not necessary that the entire revision proceeding should be completed within that period. There shall be no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.