important point
If no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period which must be found out from the statutory scheme.

Headnote:(a)Punjab General Sales Tax Act – Sections 11 and 21 – Where an assessment order is to be reviewed, the same should be done within a period of one year – Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for revision of an assessment order u/s 21, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. (Paras 15 and 16)
       (b)Punjab General Sales Tax Act – Section 21 – Trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period which must be found out from the statutory scheme – Having regard to the purport in terms of the Act, revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years – In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years – The High Court judgment, thus, could not be said to be unreasonable. (Paras 17, 18)AIR 1964 SC 1413; 1976 (37) STC 425 – Relied upon.
       (1997) 7 SCC 715 – Distinguished.
       (c)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ petition can be maintained on a question of limitation, it being a jurisdictional question – The Revisional Authority, being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act – No infirmity in High Court judgment. (Paras 23 and 24)
       Facts of the case:
       1.What should be the reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act is the question involved in this appeal.
       2.Respondent herein is a federation of milk union. It is a cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1948. It is also registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Act provides for levy of purchase tax on milk when purchased for use in the manufacture of goods which are specified in Schedule C thereof. Milk when purchased for use in the manufacture of any goods other than tax free goods provides for levy of purchase tax.
       3.In respect of the assessment for the year ending 31.3.2000, the assessment proceedings were completed on 20.3.2001.
       4.The authority issued notice upon the respondent to show cause on 14.9.2006 as to why the proposed action under Section 21(1) of the Act be not taken on the premise that ‘illegalities, irregularities and improprieties’ had been found in the order of assessment dated 20.3.2001.
       5.Respondent neither appeared before the revisional authority nor filed any show cause. Instead it filed a writ petition.
       6.Held that revision of the assessment was time barred.
       Findings of the Court:
       Having regard to the purport in terms of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.What should be the reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15477 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed against a notice dated 4.9.2006 issued by Revisional Authority-cum-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Bhatinda to the respondent was allowed.

3.Before embarking upon the said question, we may notice the basic fact of the matter.

4.Respondent herein is a federation of milk union. It is a cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1948. It is also registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It has been running milk plants under the control of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chandigarh. The Act provides for levy of purchase tax on milk when purchased for use in the manufacture of goods which are specified in Schedule C thereof. Milk when purchased for use in the manufacture of any goods other than tax free goods provides for levy of purchase tax.

5.In respect of the assessment for the year ending 31.3.2000, the assessment proceedings were completed relying on the return filed by the appellant on 20.3.2001. Indisputably, in terms of Section 11 of the 1948 Act, a period of three years has been prescribed as a period of limitation as contained under sub-section (3) of Section 11 for completing assessment from the last date for filing of return. Sub-section (6) of Section 11 reads as under :

“If upon information which has come into his possession, the Assessing Authority is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period but has failed to apply for registration, the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods and in case where such dealer has willfully failed to apply for registration, the Assessing Authority may direct that the dealer shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount so assessed, a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount.”

Section 21 of the said Act provides for revision. Section 21 of the Act with which we are concerned herein reads as under:

“21. Revision-(1) The Commissioner may of his own motion call for the record of any proceedings which are pending before, or have been disposed of by any authority subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit.

(2)The State Government may by notification confer on any Officer the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) to be exercised subject to such conditions and in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification.

(3)A Tribunal, on application made to it against an order of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) within ninety days from the date of communication of the order, may call for and examine the record of any such case and pass such orders thereon as it thinks just and proper.

(4)No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

6.The authority issued notice upon the respondent to show cause as to why the proposed action under Section 21(1) of the Act be not taken on the premise that “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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1433

important pointIf no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period which must be found out from the statutory scheme.

Cases Referred (3)

important point
If no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period which must be found out from the statutory scheme.