VISHANJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax, Daltonganj, Shri M. K. Sinha, made an order on the 8th August, 1949, that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax in respect of the quarter ending the 31st March, 1949. The reason for a "nil" assessment was that a petition was filed on behalf of the assessee stating that his business had been closed. Later on, an inquiry was made by the Inspector of Sales Tax and it was found that during the quarter in question the assessee had despatched by rail goods of considerable amount. The Superintendent of Sales Tax thereupon made an application to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for revising the assessment order of Shri M. K. Sinha, dated the 8th August, 1949. It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the Commissioner of Sales Tax that the proceeding for a suo motu revision can be initiated only within four years of the date of the order of assessment which is sought to be revised, and in support of this argument reference was made to Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act as amended by Bihar Finance Act of 1951 (Bihar Act VII of 1951). The argument was rejected by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground that the amendment does not apply to the present case because the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax was made on the 8th August, 1949, long before the Amendment Act came into force, and the period of limitation prescribed by the Amendment Act cannot be applied to the present case. An application in revision was taken on behalf of the assessee to the Board of Revenue, but the application was dismissed.

(2.) As directed by the High Court, the Board of Revenue has now stated a case under Section 25(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act on the following question of law :- Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had authority to revise the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax, dated the 8th August, 1949, in respect of the quarter ending the 31st March, 1949, in view of the amended Section 24(4) of the statute, in the circumstances of this case.

(3.) On behalf of the asscssee learned counsel put forward the argument that the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was passed on the 11th August, 1954, more than a period of four years after the date of the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax, and the order of the Commissioner was illegal in view of the period of limitation prescribed by Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act as amended by the Bihar Finance Act of 1951 (Bihar Act VII of 1951). It is necessary at this stage to quote Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act as it stood before the amendment of 1951 :- 24. (4) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner may, upon application or of his own motion, revise any order passed under this Act or the rules thereunder by a person appointed under Section 3 to assist him and, subject as aforesaid, the Board of Revenue may, in like manner revise any order passed by the Commissioner : Provided that before rejecting any application for the revision of any such order, the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, shall consider it and shall record reasons for such rejection.