SIEMENS INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant M/s. Siemens India Limited, are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants filed their returns under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, within the prescribed period, that is to say, before 14th May, 1965. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 20th April, 1967, granted to the applicants a set-off to the tune of Rs. 88.237. In respect of this assessment order of 20th April, 1967, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, in exercise of his power of suo motu revision under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, issued a notice dated 1st March, 1972, proposing to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer granting the set-off. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 30th April, 1972, revised the order of the Sales Tax Officer and reduced the amount of set-off by a sum of Rs. 8,902.12. The applicants filed an appeal from this order before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appeal was rejected. But the Deputy Commissioner reduced the disallowance from Rs. 8,902.12 to Rs. 4,254.12. The applicants filed a revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated 5th April, 1979, confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. From the order of the Tribunal the following question has been referred to us : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. where the assessee had filed his returns during the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, and the order of assessment was passed on 20th April, 1967, was the Tribunal right in holding that the notice served on 14th March, 1972, under section 57 of the Act for suo motu revision was not barred by limitation ? To appreciate the question referred to us it is necessary to set out the provisions of section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended from time to time :

(2.) In order to determine the law which applies to such revision proceedings it is necessary to make a distinction between substantive laws and procedural laws. Broadly speaking substantive laws determine the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned. Procedural laws govern the manner in which such rights or obligations are to be enforced or realized. While in principle the distinction between these two types of laws is clear, it is often difficult to apply the principle in practice. Demarcation of a dividing line between these two types of laws is not always easy; nor is it easy to classify rights as wholly substantive or wholly procedural. When these rights are sought to be exercised, substantial rights get crystallised as on the date when a proceeding to enforce these rights is initiated. Any subsequent alteration in such rights will not affect the parties concerned, unless it is expressly or impliedly so prescribed. But procedural rights do not get crystallised in this fashion. If procedure changes, the changed procedure will apply.

(3.) Substantive rights of an assessee are therefore the rights as on the date of the initiation of assessment proceedings. Even if these rights are amended or altered subsequently, such alterations and amendments will not affect the substantive rights which govern the assessment proceedings. Procedure for enforcement of these rights, however, has to be determined with reference to the law in force at the time when such rights are sought to be enforced. Therefore, if there are any amendments or alterations in the procedural law in the course of the assessment proceedings, the altered procedural law will be applicable.