TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2010. According to the petitioner, in the said revision, after making endorsement of presentation of the revisions, no date was fixed which is required to be fixed by the revisional authority and thereafter also no intimation is given to the assessee of fixing of the date. However, after about three years the petitioner received a notice of garnishee order dated 15.1.2013. The petitioner challenged the said garnishee order dated 15.1.2013 in this petition. When the matters were taken up by this Court on 22.1.2013, some important facts came to the notice of this Court, upon which, this Court passed a detailed order and directed the revisional authority the CommissionerCumSecretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur to place before this Court the facts and figures of yearwise pendency of the revision petitions pending before the revisional authority and also to disclose that in how many revision petitions, initial date has not been fixed for the period more than six months. In response to the order dated 22.1.2013, both the above authorities have filed the counter affidavit. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment as well as by almost all the State Government. We are constraint to observe again here that by taking such type of objectionable attitude of non-consideration of the application for interim prayer virtually the authorities are helping the persons who want to avoid the payment of tax by compelling the court to pass interim order against the recovery or against taking coercive measures. Therefore, the Respondent No.1Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, as well as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, are directed to state and place before this Court the yearwise pendency of the revision petition before the revisional authority, and also directed to place on record that in how many revision petitions initial date has been fixed for the period more than six months. 2. It appears from the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who has filed the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.1revisional authority that in a large number of revision petitions notices (total 374) have been served upon large number of revision petitioners by publication of notices in newspaper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on petition which is pending since 2001 to 2005 leaving nil pendency for these years. This fact clearly indicate that if the revision petitions would have been heard regularly, the pendency before the revisional authority would have been virtual minimal which may not have been even in 3 figures. 5. In the backdrop of these facts, we may revert back to the facts of the case of these petitions, wherein the assessment order was passed in the year 2005 and the appeal was dismissed in the year 2008 and revision petition was preferred in the year 2010 and admittedly there was no interim order in favour of the assessee since the year 2010. Therefore, the revenue itself was not serious in recovery of the State dues for almost eight years if, there was no stay during the pendency of the appeal and if, there was stay, then in that situation, the revenue was not serious in recovery of the revenue for almost three years. Then, the assessing officer, after about three years, straightway issued the garnishee order dated 15.1.2013. It appears that the revenue since is having a very strong weapon in their hands, therefore, the revenue is under the impression that such weapon can be used arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee will make efforts for getting the date fixed for consideration of even interim prayer much less of fixing date for hearing of the revision petition. It appears from the contention of the petitioner as well as from the counter filed by the respondent that in fact in large number of cases, no notices fixing the date were issued for months together and may be for years. Such practice is deprecated inspite of the fact that according to the learned counsel for the revenue, the revisional authority is the administrative head of the department and he has to discharge administrative function in the revenue matters in the entire State of Jharkhand because of the reason that, once the right is given to any assessee to challenge the order may be by preferring appeal or may be by revision, then there must be some system and known procedure for taking up the matters and that is the duty of the appellate and the revisional authority which is not dependent upon any effort of the assessee who has preferred the appeal or revision. We have already observed in our order dated 22.01.2013 that the Court and Tribunals are not dependent upon the zeal and efforts of the litigants to manage Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal is rejected and in revision application no interim order is passed and such type of matters are kept pending before assessing authority so as to use the order for recovery at any time by taking coercive measures including attaching the bank account of running unit of the assessee, making all the working crepelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments like judgment of Karnatka High Court rendered in the case of M.L. Narasimha Gupta Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore Ors. reported in 75 STC 154, and another judgment of Division of Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered in the case of AnabeShahi Wines and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad Ors. reported in 98 STC 386 and another judgment of Madras High Court delivered in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore Ors. reported in (2008) 17 VST 32 (Mad. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1348 of 2012 in the case of Tata Cummins Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
