9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of suo moto revisional powers by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of the powers vested under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act'). It has been contended by the revision petitioner that Joint Commissioner did not possess jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 63A of the Act on the ground that that said provision came to be inserted by Act No.4/2006 with effect from 01.04.2006 and as such, for the period anterior to 01.04.2006, Joint Commissioner cannot exercise the suo moto power to revise the order of assessment. 3. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of civil works contracts of construction of commercial and residential buildings and is registered under the provisions of the KVAT Act. 4. The dispute in the present revision petitions relate to the assessment year 2005-06 i.e., for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. For the said period, vide order dated 08.06.2006, the assessment was completed and the assessment order was passed under Section 38(1) of the KVAT Act. Invoking the provisions of Section 63A of the KVAT Act, which was inserted by the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2006, even though the period related prior to 01.04.2006, which was the date on which Section 63A of the KVAT Act had been inserted. 8. Chapter VII of the KVAT Act deals with Appeals and Revision. Section 62 of the KVAT Act provides for appeals to be filed against an order of assessment or any other order, before the appellate authority. Section 63 of the KVAT Act provides for appeal against the order of the appellate authority before the appellate Tribunal. Section 64 provides for Revisional powers of Additional Commissioner and Commissioner, who may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceedings. Section 65 of the KVAT Act provides for Revision by High Court in certain cases. The Legislature, by the Amendment Act No.4 of 2006, besides making several other amendments under the KVAT Act, also inserted a new Section 63A of the KVAT Act providing for Revisional powers of Joint Commissioner, which were in the same terms as provided for Additional Commissioner under Section 64 of the KVAT Act. The said Section 63A of the KVAT Act came into effect from 01.04.2006. For ready reference, Section 63A of the KVAT Act is produced below: "63-A. Revisional powers of J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 for the assessment period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. If we arrive at a conclusion that the Joint Commissioner can exercise such powers only for the tax period after 01.04.2006, as the Section 63A has come into effect from the said date, then exercise of such power by the Joint Commissioner in the present case cannot be justified as the same relates to Assessment Year 2005-06, which is prior to 01.04.2006. However, sub-section (2) of Section 63A of the KVAT Act makes it clear that the Joint Commissioner has the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction for a period which is not prior to four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Meaning thereby that the Joint Commissioner gets the revisional power only after 01.04.2006 but the period with regard to which such power can be exercised could be prior to 01.04.2006. 10. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the concerned provision of the taxing statute is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two interpretations, then the interpretation which favours the assessee has to be preferred and not the one which favours the revenue. But such a question would arise only when there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these cases, this Court held that the proviso which amended the existing provision gave it retrospectively. When the provision of law is explicit, it has to operate fully and there could not be any limits to its operation. This Court in Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla case said that if the language expressly so states or clearly implies, retrospectively must be given to the provision. Under Section 34 of the Income Tax, 1922, it is the service of the notice which is sine qua non, an indispensable requisite, for the initiation of assessment or reassessment proceedings where income had escaped assessment. That is not so in the present case. Under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act before its amendment, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, assess or reassess the dealer according to law. Sub-section (2) provided that except as otherwise provided in this section, no order for any assessment year shall be made after the expiry of 4 years from the end of such year. However, after the amendment, a proviso was added to subsection (2) under which the Commissioner of Sales Tax authorizes the assessing authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years. The only safeguard being that it is after satisfaction of thee Commissioner of Sales Tax. The proviso is operative from February 19, 1991 and a bare reading of the proviso shows that the operation of this proviso relates and encompasses back to previous eight assessment years. We need not refer to the provisions of the Income Tax Act to interpret proviso to Section 21(2) the language of which is clear and unambiguous and so is the intention of Legislature. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court was not right in quashing the sanction given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and notices issued by the Assessing Authority in pursuance thereof." 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vatika Township Private Limited (supra) to bring home the point that the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. There is no quarrel with this proposition as unless a provision is made retrosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
