9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. impugns a judgment of the Patna High Court dated April 12, 1961, arising from a petition in the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution. By that petition the Corporation challenged certain review proceedings pending before the Superintendent of Sales Tax as the result of an application by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, asking for review of the previous order in the light of the decision of this Court in State of Bombay and Another v. United Motors (India) Ltd. and Others [1953] S.C.R. 1069; 4 S.T.C. 133. The application by the Commissioner was made in the following circumstances: The Corporation is a company incorporated in England and it carries on its business and trade in India at Ghatsila, Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh after verification of the quantities under different categories which may be proved to have been sent outside Bihar." The Superintendent of Sales Tax, Jamshedpur, then passed an order on February 11, 1956, holding the Corporation entitled to a refund of Rs. 4,05,404-15-0 and reassessed the petitioner to sales tax amounting to Rs. 36,395-1-0. The same day the Superintendent of Sales Tax issued a notice to the Corporation for forfeiture of the amount refundable to it under section 14A of the Act inasmuch as the Corporation had collected this amount, by way of tax, in contravention of the law. The Corporation applied for refund on March 25, 1956. The Corporation then applied to the Patna High Court to quash the proceedings for forfeiture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Many grounds were urged before the High Court and were dealt with by it in the judgment under appeal. It was contended before the High Court that the powers of review granted by section 24(5) of the Act must be construed to have the same meaning as in section 114 and order 47, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court went into this question at great length and rejected the contention. It appears to us that this was unnecessary and, in fact, premature. The extent of review allowed by the Act was a matter for the determination of the authority concerned and the High Court should not have taken on itself the duty of explaining the extent of those powers. That was something which might well have been left to the determination of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e need to be consider- ed in this appeal. Before we consider them it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. The power of review is granted by section 24(5) which reads: "Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any person appoint- ed under section 3 may be reviewed by the person passing it or by his successor-in-office." Rule 39 of the Bihar Sales Tax rules, 1949, is framed under the above sub-section and provides: "39. Review-(1) When the Commissioner or any other officer reviews any order under sub-section (5) of section 24, he shall record his reasons in writing for doing so. (2) Save with the previous sanction of the Commissioner an order not pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanction is a condition precedent though only one sanction would do. It is necessary first to decide whether there is such sanction. The Commissioner has moved for a review because the law, as explained by this Court in the United Motors case [1953] S.C.R. 1069; 4 S.T.C. 133., was perhaps not followed. On that application notices have been issued to the Corporation to produce its books of account. The officer concerned has not yet reviewed the order of his predecessor. The petition has been made to question the initiation of review proceedings. The officer is merely considering whether a case for review exists. The words of the rule are that the order passed "shall not be reviewed" save with the previous sanction of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reviewed save with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. The emphasis is no doubt on the passage of time but the rule indicates that within the period specified the sanction of the Commissioner is not necessary. Even after the passage of time action can be taken but with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. This limit of time does not apply to orders passed by the Commissioner himself. A sanction is thus needed after the expiry of 12 months but sanction is not necessary within that period. If proceedings are commenced within 12 months and also concluded within 12 months there is no need for sanction. If they are commenced within 12 months but actual review takes place after 12 months, sanction must be obtained before reviewing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
