TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 12th December, 1966, was passed by the Assistant Commissioner as stated above. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee filed his objections by his reply dated 4th December, 1970. The show cause notice had called upon the assessee to show cause and to put forward his objections within seven days from the date of service of the notice. Since the notice was served upon the assessee on 1st December, 1970, the objections filed on 4th December, 1970, were within the time indicated in the show cause notice. By his order dated 11th December, 1970, the Deputy Commissioner revised the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Though the Deputy Commissioner purported to have passed the order on 11th December, 1970, the order passed by him was not served upon the assessee till 25th April, 1972. One of the questions which was argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether this order of the Deputy Commissioner could be said to be legal and valid, in view of the delay, which had taken place in serving the order, namely, the delay from 11th December, 1970, to 25th April, 1972. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercisability of the powers of revision by the Deputy Commissioner so far as the provisions of section 20(3) are concerned. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Shanabhai v. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income-tax Officer[1974] 96 I.T.R. 141. He urged that in view of this decision of the Gujarat High Court to which I was a party and in view of the fact that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Debi v. Income-tax Officer[1964] 53 I.T.R. 100 (S.C.). and of the Gujarat High Court in Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt v. J.P. Jani, Income-tax Officer[1965] 58 I.T.R. 559., were followed in Shanabhai v. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income-tax Officer(1), we must hold that the date of service of the notice is the material date and not the date on which the Deputy Commissioner purports to have passed his order under section 20. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi, in the course of which, he relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Shanabhai v. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income-tax Officer[1974] 96 I.T.R. 141. That case arose in connection with a notice to reopen the assessment and was a notice issued under section 147 read with sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the crucial date. Though the Deputy Commissioner was within the period of limitation in passing the order of revision, he did not take care to see that the order was served within a reasonable time. It is a well-settled principle that when a system is governed by the rule of law, as they are in India, all other things must be done by administrative officers reasonably and if the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not served upon the assessee within a reasonable time, he cannot be said to have acted reasonably. It must be borne in mind that until the order of the Deputy Commissioner was served upon him the assessee was entitled to proceed upon the footing that the Assistant Commissioner's order was correct order. It is quite likely that the assessee was conducting his affairs on the footing that the Assistant Commissioner's order was correct. If the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his power of revision, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, then it would mean that at the earliest moment of time from 11th December, 1970, the assessee should rearrange his affairs thereafter, so that he may not once again come within the mischief of the legal position as laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular case, the Supreme Court found that the Commissioner had not made any undue or unreasonable delay in exercising his revisional powers. In view of these two decisions of the Supreme Court and, particularly, in the light of the decision in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav[1976] 37 S.T.C. 425 (S.C.)., it is obvious that all executive authorities whenever they exercise their powers and whenever they take action must act reasonably, that is, within a reasonable time. Here, the rights of the assessee were going to be effected by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision and, as we have pointed out above, the assessee was likely to continue to conduct his affairs relying upon the decision of the Assistant Commissioner passed as far back as December, 1966. In order to see that no further prejudice would be caused to the assessee it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to see that the order in revision passed by him was served upon the assessee concerned within a reasonable time. It is true that the period of limitation for filing an appeal begins to run from the date on which the order of the Deputy Commissioner was served on the assessee. Similarly, no notice of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
