SWASTIK OIL MILLS LTD. vs. H. B. MUNSHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 637/1967Supreme Court[1968] 2 S.C.R. 49229 November 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Swastik Oil Mills Ltd., was registered as a dealer under various Bombay Sales Tax Acts. For assessment years April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1950, and April 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, the appellant claimed exemption for goods despatched from its head office in Bombay to branches in other states. The Sales Tax Officer rejected these claims. On appeal, the Assistant Collector accepted the exemption for despatches to out-of-state branches but rejected other claims, also directing a refund of excess tax. While revision petitions were pending, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice on January 7, 1963, proposing to revise the Assistant Collector's order suo motu, citing overlooked provisions of law regarding the exemption for goods despatched to out-of-state branches. The appellant's petition to the High Court to quash this notice was dismissed.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner were not incompetent and the High Court was correct in refusing the writ. Regarding issue (i), the Court held that a revisional authority is entitled to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of an order and can hold or direct further inquiries if necessary to arrive at a proper and just decision, citing State of Kerala v. K. M. Cheria Abdulla and Company. The notice in this case disclosed reasons for revision and was not based on mere conjecture. Regarding issue (ii), the Court held that Section 77(1)(a) of the Act of 1959 continued the force of the Act of 1953 for the purposes of levy and assessment, and Section 7(e) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, made applicable by Section 77(3) of the 1959 Act, allowed legal proceedings to continue as if there had been no repeal. Therefore, the repeal of the Act of 1953 did not affect the Deputy Commissioner's power to initiate revision. The Court also noted that while the Deputy Commissioner should have proceeded under Section 22 of the Act of 1946, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1953 were similar, making this immaterial. Regarding issue (iii), the Court held that Sections 22 of the Act of 1946 and 31 of the Act of 1953 do not prescribe any period of limitation for the suo motu exercise of revision, and no such limitation could be implied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, in exercising revisional powers under the Sales Tax Acts of 1946, 1953, or 1959, could act only on existing material or was permitted to conduct further inquiries to gather additional material. The appellant contended that revisional powers could only be exercised based on the existing record and not by instituting new inquiries or gathering additional material. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point, but the Tribunal's reasoning implies the revenue supported the Deputy Commissioner's right to inquire. 2. Whether the notice issued on January 7, 1963, under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, was time-barred, given that the Act of 1959 was in force and the Act of 1953 had been repealed, and if the revisional jurisdiction under the Act of 1959 could be exercised within five years. The appellant argued that the notice was issued under a repealed Act and that any revisional jurisdiction under the Act of 1959 was time-barred as it was issued more than five years after the order sought to be revised. The revenue contended that the repeal did not affect the revisional power and that no limitation period applied. 3. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner were barred by the principle of implied limitation within a reasonable time. The appellant argued that a reasonable time limit must be implied in the statute for the exercise of revisional powers. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 31,Section 57,Section 77(1)(a),Section 71(3),Section 22,Section 11A,Section 34

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 31

All 321 judgments and leading authorities on Section 31 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →