9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal-I Circle, Angul. The petitioner was initially assessed under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, (in short "CST(O) Rules") in the year 1991 by the Sales Tax Officer-opposite party no.3, who, vide order dated 05.03.1993, after examining the books of accounts and related documents, allowed the claim of exemption made by the petitioner under Section 6(2) of the Central Act and determined to refund an amount of Rs. 12,814/-. But, subsequently, on receipt of objection raised by the audit party questioning grant of exemption under the Central Act, opposite party no.3 reopened the assessment, called upon the petitioner to participate in the reassessment proceeding and, by order dated 25.08.1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposite party no.2 is beyond the period of limitation and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Dr. C.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that under the Orissa Sles Tax Act and Orissa Sales Tax Rules initiation of suo motu revision should be within three years and the conclusion can be thereafter. It is further contended that limitation of three years would apply only to the first part of the Rule which relates to calling for the records of the proceedings and not with regard to passing of the revisional order as the two sections of the Rule are joined with the word 'and' would mean that limitation of three years would be applicable for the first part only and not for the second part which is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , call for records of the proceedings in which such order was passed and if he considers that any order passed therein is erroneous in-so-far-as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue he may after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary revise any such order: Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this rule- (1) Where an appeal against the order is pending before the appellate authority under section 23, or (2) Where time limit for filing an appeal under Section 23 has not expired." 6. In view of the aforementioned provisions, taking into consideration the factual aspect of the case in hand, the only dispute which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation contrary to the above would mean that even though initiation of proceedings for revision may be done within three years, final order can be passed after years of such initiation which would keep the matter hanging for years together, which cannot be the intention of the Act. The purpose of Rule 80 is to give finality to the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner within a specified period and the same can be done after proper interpretation is given that the proceedings are to conclude and revision orders passed within a period specified in the Rule. 11. In our view, the entire Rule 80 cannot be read in a disjoined manner. On reading of the Rule in a joint manner would make it clear that for revising an order wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
