By C. B. Thakar, Advocate
G. G. Goyal, Janak Vaghani, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Revision – Suo Motu Revision by Joint Commissioner – By forming his own opinion and satisfaction – On the basis of material on record- Does not become invalid merely because it was exercised pursuant to a letter by another Deputy Commissioner,
Limitation – No provision prescribing time limit – Provision of limitation act prescribing period of three years – Not applicable – However, such power to be exercised within reasonable period of time – Exercise of such power within period of three years or soon thereafter – On facts – Reasonable, Section 46 (2), (3), and (4) of The Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and Art. 137 of The Limitation Act, 1963.
Facts
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad Circle, on the basis of guidelines issued by Joint Commissioner (appeals) passed a revised assessment order. The dealer filed writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand praying for a direction to quash the order passed by the Joint Commissioner by which he had set aside the revised assessment order. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the dealer against which the department filed appeal before the Supreme Court.
Held
In all these appeals the Joint Commissioner has exercised the Suo Motu power vested in him under the Act within a period of three years in some cases and in some cases soon thereafter. The revision order was passed by him by forming his own opinion and satisfaction on the basis of the material on the record. Therefore, the revision order by him is valid. When the language of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, nothing could be read or added to the language, the High Court wrongly read application of section 137 of the Limitation Act to section 46 (4 ) of the BFT Act. In absence of any specific provision in the act, the provision of the Limitation Act cannot apply to section 46(4) of the Act. However, such a power cannot be exercised by the authority indefinitely. Such power has to be exercised within a reasonable period of time and what is a reasonable period of time would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When such powers have been exercised within three years of time in some cases and in some cases soon after the expiry of three years period it cannot be said to be unreasonable.
