VENKATESWARA AND COMPANY Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has to succeed in this writ petition on a technical plea taken by Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman , learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of limitation for initiating action for revision under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). THE respondent initially issued a notice on March 14, 1980 proposing revision of the assessment for the year 1974-75. That was challenged by way of an appeal, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the notice proposing revision was not at all served on the petitioner and would not amount to a valid notice in the eye of law. Yet, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner chose to remit the matter back to the respondent directing him to issue notice to all the partners of the petitioner inviting their objections and then pass a revised order. Pursuant to this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the respondent has issued the impugned notice on February 5, 1981. THE period prescribed for exercising the power of revision is five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. On the date the impugned notice had come to be issued, this period of five years had elapsed. THE question is whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could be availed of to save the limitation prescribed by the statute. If there had been a lacuna in the initiation of the proceeding in that it was initiated beyond the time prescribed, that lacuna will certainly deprive the authority concerned of the jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision as per section 16 of the Act. This proposition squarely comes into play and militates against the impugned notice. THE order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot extend the period of limitation. THE respondent cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision under section 16 of the Act beyond time, merely because the Appellate Assistant Commissioner chose to direct him to issue a fresh notice. A similar view has been expressed by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1 9791 (44) STC 456. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.