LexSWASTIK OIL MILLS LTD. versus H. B. MUNSHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SWASTIK OIL MILLS LTD.
v.
II. H. Ml_;!\SHI. l>F:PliT\' COMMISSIO~ER OF SALES TAX
_,/'
BOMBA\'
'
November 29, 1967
B
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI 11:>0 V. 8HARGAVA, JJ.J
. Revisional power~-suo motu exercise of-limitntivns-if further in-
quiry 10 gather add1tionol maleria/ permiisib/e.
Bombay Salt.! Tax Act, 5 of 1946, Act 3 of 1953, s. 31, Ac1 51of1959,
ss. 57, 77(l)(a), 71(3)-Scope o/.
The appellant was registered as a <l"'1ler under the ,·arious Sales Tax
Acts in force in Bombay fro. · time to time i.e. Bombay Acts 5 of 1946.
3 of 1953 and 51 of 1959. ln the course of us assessment' to sale<; ia,
for the periods from !st April, 1948 to 31st March, 1950, and from 1st
April 1950 to 31st March, 1951, the appellant claimed c'cmption from
tax. inter n/ia, in respect of certain despatches of ~ooJs from ils -head
office in Bombay to its branches in other States.
The Sales Tax Officer
rejected thec;c claims but, in appeal, the Assistant Collector accepted the
claim in re..,pect of the despatches 10 various branches though he rcjl~ted
'1II other Claims for exemption.
lie also directed a rcfuncl of rhe excc~s
rax collected from the appellants.
While revision petitions tiled hy the
appellant
a~ainst these orders were pending, a notice was issued ttl him
on January 7. 1963 by the Deputy Commissioner of Sale' Ta' in Form
XXJV under s. 31 of the Bombay Sales Ta. Act, 1953. intimatin~ the
appellant that he proposed to revise suo motu the orders passed hy the
Assistant CoUcctor in so far as he had allowed deduction in re<,,pcct of
1he entire goods despatched to the appellants'
branches
outside Maha-
rashtra hecause, in so doing, he had overlooked certain provision!\ of Jaw
\Vhich \\'ere specified in the notic.e.
The appellant filed a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the notice dated 7th Janu-
ary, 1963 but his petition was dismissed by tho High Court.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the oppellant.
inter alia (i) that in exercise of ~I! revisional powers, the Deputy Com-
miS<ioner, whether acting under the Sales Ta< Act of 1946. or oi 1953.
or of 1959 could onlv proceed to take action on the basis of the m:ucrial
alreadv pre
1sent on thC: record and \\'a~ not entitled to act on conjrcrurr or
10 in~!itute any enquiry so as to include additional material nor to jud!le
the correctness of the order sou~ht to be re\ised; (ii) that the notice:- in
4u\!'\tio:1 \Ycts issued on 7th January. 1963. \\'hC'Tl the Act of 1959 h;1d al-
ready come into force and the Act of 1953 had heen rercalecl:
'\O
1hat
any revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised by the Deput\' Com-
missioner under the Act of 1959 and not under the Act of 1953: as the
power ender s. 57 of the Act of 1959 could only be exercised within
five vears from the date of the order sought to be revised; the notice
i5'ucd hv the Dcputv Commissioner was time barred; and (iii) that the
proce~~:;igo;; to he insiituted were barred bv time. hecausc limitation of a
reasonable time: wi1hin which the revisional powers are to he e."{erci~ed
must he implied in the statute itself.
c
D
E
G
H
A
II
("
D
E
G
SWAST!K OIL MILLS V. COMMR. s. TAX (Bhargava, J.) 493
HELD : The proceedings initiated by the
Depu~y Commissioner of
Sales Tax against the appellant were not incompeteot and the High Court
was right in refusing the writ sought by the appellant.
\
(i) Whenever a power is conferredi on an authority to revise an
order, it is entitled to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of
the order and to pass such suitable orders as it may think fit in the circum-
stances of the particular case.
The proceedings for revision, if started
suo tnotu, must not be based on a mere conjecture and there should be
some ground for invoking the revisional powers.
Once these powers are
invoked. the actual interference must be based on sufficient grounds and,
if it is considered necessary that some additional enquiry should be made
to arrive at a proper and just decision, there can be no bar to the revits-
iog authority holding or directing a further enquiry and thereafter ad-
mitting additional nrnterial. [496 A-CJ
Th,• State u/ Kera/a v. K. M. Cheria Abdulla and Company, [1965] 1
S.C.R. 601, explained and followed.
State of Anclhra Pradesh v. T. G. Lakslunaiah Setty & Sons, 12 S.T.C.
663; disapprovecl.
In the present case. the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. on
!Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.