9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.9397 of 1999, M/s. Sagarmal Agarwalla v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and 2 others, dated 10.01.2018. Learned counsel for the Revenue Departmentopposite parties is directed to find out the original record pertaining to this writ petition. The matter to come up on 19.06.2019." 3. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that now the case of the petitioner will be governed by the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sagarmal Agarwalla (supra), which was disposed of on 10.01.2018 with the following order: "xx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral 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, disallowed the claim of exemption and demanded a sum of Rs.7,696/- under the Central Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 initiated a proceeding under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules to revise the reassessment already made, vide order dated 25.08.1993, in the year 1990-91 and held, by order dated 05.09.1996, that claim for exemption made by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 for passing of the order. 4. We have heard Sri J.Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri S.K.Mohanty for the petitioner as well as Dr. C.R.Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. 5. The fact delineated above being undisputed, for just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, it may be proper to reproduce the relevant Section 23(4)(a) of the O.S.T. Act and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such remedy or the application is not filed within the prescribed period. xxx xxx &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suo motu revision has been provided for. 7. The power of the Commissioner to revise an order either on application by the dealer on his own motion has been provided for under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the O.S.T.Act which is subject to limitation provided under Rule 80 of the Rules. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings for revision. 8. The only question which remains for determination of this Court is as to whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if initiated within three years can be concluded beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Nilei Sahoo, 9 (1961) XII STC 728 as relied on by Dr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same has been rendered while interpreting the provisions of Section 12(7) of the OST Act which only dealt with the re-opening of the assessment within a period of 36 months and there was no mention in the said Section with regard to passing of the of the final order within a period of 36 months. As such, since the wordings of Section 12(7) of the O.S.T.Act as then stood are distinct from those of Rule 80 of the Rules which is interpreted in this case. The said decision would not relevant for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
