9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. During the relevant year, the appellant had carried out two works contracts with BPCL and L & T Limited for which it had applied for composition under section 55(A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and also obtained permission for composition in Form 35(B). The appellant submitted all the monthly, quarterly and annual returns and also paid sales tax accordingly. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer, without cancelling the composition permission granted to the appellant, assessed it as if such composition permission was never issued to the appellant. The revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the court to the facts of the case to submit that the order permitting composition was passed on 19.12.2000, whereas the same was taken in revision by issuance of notice dated 2.2.2005 which is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 67 of the Act. Referring to the provisions of section 67 of the Act, it was pointed out that the limitation prescribed therein in a case where the Commissioner of his own motion takes an order passed by any officer appointed under section 27 to assist him, is three years from the date of such order, whereas in the facts of the present case while the composition order was passed on 19.12.2000, notice under section 67 of the Act was issued on 2.2.2005, which is clearly beyond the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not be encouraged and that in any case the ground for cancellation of the composition permission was not illegal. It was argued that the material condition for such permission was that the applications for composition permission ought to have been filed within one month and that since the applications were not filed within one month, the composition permission could not have been granted. Therefore, the grant of composition permission itself was illegal. 7.1 The learned Assistant Government Pleader further pointed out that the Tribunal has thought it fit that it would not be just, legal and equitable to encourage dishonesty by giving technical benefit to the appellant on the issue of limitation, more so, when the appellant was not en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an application made to him within one year from the date of any order passed by any officer appointed under section 27 to assist him, may call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper within twelve months from the date of service of notice for revision. 10. From the language employed in the section 67 of the Act, it is amply clear that the period of limitation of three years commences from the date any order has been passed by any officer appointed under section 27 to assist the Commissioner. In the present case, such order is the composition order dated 19.12.2000. In the light of the clear language of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 67 of the Act, the period of three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) "... It may seem hard that a cunningly advised taxpayer should be able to avoid what appears to be his equitable share of the general fiscal burden and cast it on the shoulders of his fellow citizens. But for the Courts to try to stretch the law to meet hard cases (whether the hardship appears to bear on the individual taxpayer or on the general body of taxpayers as represented by the Inland Revenue) is not merely to make bad law but to run the risk of subverting the rule of law itself." (emphasis supplied) 403. The proper course in construing revenue Acts is to give a fair and reasonable construction to their language without leaning to one side or the other but keeping in mind that no tax can be imposed without words clearly sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord.
13. The first question, therefore, stands answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
14. In the light of the fact that the revisional proceedings have been held to be time barred, it would not be necessary to enter into the merits of the controversy raised by the second question, which is accordingly, left unanswered.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appeal-4, Vadodara, are hereby quashed and set aside and the composition order dated 19.12.2000 is hereby restored. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
