LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BHATINDA DISTRICT COOP. MILK P. UNION LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. "! v. BHATINDA DISTRICT COOP. MILK P. UNION LTD. OCTOBER 11, 2007 B ':· [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1948: ss.11, 21-Revisional c authority issued show cause notice after 5-112 years-High Court set '>- aside the same as time barred-On appeal, held: No limitation period for filing revision prescribed in the statute-Therefore, revisional Ct authority is to exercise its jurisdiction within reasonable time- Authority did not assign any reason as to why notice was issued after long delay-High Court rightly held revisional order to be D unsustainable. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ petition- Maintainability of, if question pertains· to limitation-Held: Maintainable as question raised is a jurisdictional question. E In respect of the assessment for the year ending 31.3.2000, the '>. assessment proceedings were completed on the basis of the return filed by the appellant on 20.3.2001. Indisputably, in terms of s.11 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1948 three years has been prescribed as a period oflimitation for completing assessment from F the last date for filing of return. The revisional authority-cum-Assistant Excise and Taxation commissioner issued a notice dated 4.9.2006 to show cause as to why 1 the proposed action under s.21(1) be not taken on the premise that G "illegalities, irregularities and improprieties", as enumerated therein had been found in the order of assessment dated 20.3.2001. Cause was to be shown on 14.9.2006. Respondent neither appeared before the revisional authority nor filed any show cause. Instead assessee- respondent filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court f--- H 14 -\ STATEv. BHATINDADISTRICTCOOP.MILKP. UNION 15 LTD. -,, · allowed the writ petition opining that the order of assessment having A been passed on 20.3.2001 and as the same is sought to be revised by issuing notice dated 4.9.2006, without assigning any reason justifying exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the same was wholly unsustainable in law. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the High Court B failed to take into consideration that no time limit has been fixed for exercise of suo mo to jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority and that as it was open to the respondent to raise all contentions before the Revisional Authority itself, and High Court ought not to have exercised its power of judicial review. C Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Respondent has been filing quarterly returns before the assessing authority showing sales turnover and purchase turn over of the goods. Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act deposit D of sales tax and purchase tax as per returns is provided for. It casts a duty on the assessee to deposit the purchase tax on purchase of milk which is used for the manufacture of goods other than tax-free goods as provided for in the Schedule appended thereto. The respondent flied returns for all the quarters for the year ending E 31.3.2000 and the assessment proceedings were completed on 28.3.2001. [Para 12] [20-E-F] 2.1. Sub-section (1) of s.11 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1948, provided for a three years limitation. Sub-section (3) of s.11 F also provides for a three years' limitation. Sub-section (6) of s.11 which is the residuary provision provides for five years' limitation. [Para 14] [20-H; 21-A) 2.2. Sub-section (1) of s.11 empowers the Commissioner to extend the period of three years for passing the order of assessment G wherefor reasons are required to be recorded in writing subject, however, to the maximum period of five years. Ordinarily, therefore, a period of three years has been prescribed for completion of the assessment in terms of the provisions of the Act. In cases where an assessment order is to be reviewed, the same should be done within H 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A a period of one year. [Para 15] [21-B] 3. A bare reading of s.21 of the Act would reveal'that although no period oflimitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo moto power can be exercised at any time. B [Para 16] (21-C] 4. It is trite that if no period oflimitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.