STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC. versus M/S. SHIVAM COKE INDUSTRIES, DHANBAD, ETC.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 1110 · Decided: 10-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[20'11] 9 S.C.R. 1110 
A 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC. 
.. 
v. 
MIS. SHIVAM COKE INDUSTRIES, DHANBAD, ETC. 
(Civil appeal1 Nos. 6889-6891 of 2011) 
B 
AUGUST 10, 2011 
.. 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Bihar Finance Act, 1981: 
c 
s. 46 (4) - Exercise of suo motu power of revision by Joint 
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -
On facts, revised 
assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, 
Commercial Taxes Division - Subsequently, new Deputy 
,_ 
D Commissioner brought to the notice of Joint Commissioner, 
the illegalities committed by his predecessor in the revised 
assessment order - Initiation of suo motu proceeding u/s. 
46(4) and issuance of notice/Memo to the assessees by the 
Joint Commissioner within a period of three years in some 
E cases and in some cases soon after the expiry of three years 
period, to determine the legality and propriety of the revised 
assessment orders - Legality of - Held: Suo motu power of 
revision was legally and properly exercised by the Joint 
Commissioner - He exercised his own independent mind for 
F issuing the notice and also recorded his own reasons for 
coming to a conclusion as to why the power u/s 46 (4) should 
be exercised - Thereafter, issued notice to the assessees 
after forming a decision - Though the Deputy Commissioner 
pointed out the illegalities and irregularities committed in the 
G 
revised assessment orders passed by his predecessor, but 
there was no referencE1 in the notice to the letter of the Deputy 
Commissioner and any other materials contained with the 
' 
~ 
said letter - Therefore, it cannot be said that while coming to 
the aforesaid conclusion in the impugned notice, the 
H 
1110 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ETC. v. SHIVAM COKE 
1111 
INDUSTRIES, DHANBAD, ETC. 
-
... 
--
Commissioner was influenced only by the opinion of the 
A 
Deputy Commissioner - It was not a revision initiated on the 
basis of any application filed by the aggrieved party namely 
the Deputy Commissioner but initiation of a revisional 
.... 
proceeding by the Joint Commissioner by forming his own 
.> 
opinion and satisfaction to exercise suo motu power vested 
B 
uls. 46 (4) - Thus, order passed by the High Court as also 
the Joint Commissioner setting aside the revised assessment 
order is set aside -
Matter remitted back to the Joint 
Commissioner for consideration afresh. 
s. 46(4) - Initiation ofsuo motu revisional proceeding by c 
the Commissioner or by the Joint Commissioner - Period of 
Limitation - Held: No penod of limitation is prescribed for suo 
; 
motu revision proceeding by the Commissioner or the Joint 
Commissioner - When the language of the legislature is clear 
D 
and unambiguous nothing could be read or added to the 
language which is not stated specifically - If the legislature 
intended to provide for any period of limitation or intended to 
apply the said provision of Article 137 into s. 46(4) the 
legislature would have specifically said so in the Act itself -
On facts, the High Could read application of Article 137 of the 
E 
Limitation Act to s. 46 (4) which was not correct - However, 
such power cannot be exercised by the revisional authority 
.. 
indefinitely- It has to be exercised within a reasonable period 
of time which depends on the facts and circumstances of the 
case - Joint Commissioner exercisep suo motu powers of F 
revision within about three years of time in some cases and 
in some cases soon after the. expiry of three year~period 
which was within a reasonable period of time - Limitation Act, 
1963 - Article 137. 
...... 
1' 
Order passed by the Joint Commissioner setting aside G 
the revised assessment order - Propriety and maintainability 
of - Held: Said order was passed during the pendency of the 
writ petition in the High Court - Assessee could not contest 
the matter very effectively before the Joint Commissioner -
H 
Thus, the order passed bv the Joint Commissioner is set 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A aside and matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner. 
---
Respondent-assessees, engaged in processing of 
coal to coke were assessed to tax for Financial Years, 
determining the tax on intra-State sales transactions as 
well as Central Sales Tax on inter-State sales 
8 transactions. Respondent challenged the assessment 
order before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial 
Taxes who remanded the assessment proceedings. The 
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed the 
revised asse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.