TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner dated 05.06.1999 in Annexure-4. Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) No. 6366 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - K.S. JHAVERI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND K.R. MOHAPATRA, JUDGE For the Appellant : M/S. JAGABANDHU SAHOO, MISS.R.SAHOO A.DAS,N.K.ROUT,R.S.AGARWALA.,MISS.R.SAHOO For the Respondent : MR. S.K. SAMANTARAY (S.C. C.T.) ORDER None appears for the parties. 2. Earlier the matter has been listed time and again. On 15.05.2019 time was granted with the following order: Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Revenue Department-opposite parties. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequently, 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 petitioner is not allowed and that the entire claim of exemption on the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 relevant Rule-80 of the O.S.T.Rules. 23. Appeal and Revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is to be resolved by this Court in the present writ petition is with regard to interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of O.S.T.Act read with Rule 80 of the O.S.T.Rules wherein the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiation 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 within a period of three years after providing opportunity to the assessee and calling for the records, the revision order itself has to be passed within a period of three years. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
