BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THE short point that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Circle 'a', Jaipur City dated the 17th September, 1956, could be revised by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his order dated 21st July, 1960, in view of the proviso (2) to sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act ).
(2.) THE Sales Tax Officer, Circle 'a', Jaipur City, assessed the petitioner and ordered on the 17th September, 1956, after taking into account the amount of deposits that the assessee was entitled to have a refund of Rs. 1,752/12/ -. In this assessment the said officer had allowed deduction for sales of Rs. 70,000/- made by the assessee upto 6th Sept. , 1955. THEreafter an application was made by the said officer to the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for revising the assessment as the deduction referred to above should not have been made. On the 21st July, 1960, the learned Additional Commissioner quashed the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 17th September, 1956, and the latter was directed to pass the order afresh in the light of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Assessment, Recovery and Validating Act, 1958. In this Writ petition it has been contended that the Additional Commissioner, exercising the delegated powers of the Commissioner, could not revise the order passed on 17th September, 1956, after more than three years of the passing of that order. On behalf of the Department a reply has been filed and the main point that has been brought out in the reply is that the petitioner had been taking adjournments from time to time because of which the period of three years expired and he was estopped from pleading that order of the Additional Commissioner was invalid or illegal. We have given our earnest consideration to this matter and we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the Department cannot be sustained. The relevant portion of sec. 14 of the Act is as follows: - "revisions - (1) The Commissioner may in his direction at any time; suo motu or being moved by the assessing authority, call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that any order is illegal or improper or erroneous he may pass such orders as he thinks fit: Provided that no order shall be passed pre judicial to a dealer without giving him an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the Commissioner shall not revise an order which has been made more than 'three years' previously. " Under the second proviso to sec. 14 the Commissioner is debarred from revising an order which had been made three years previously. This bar is absolute as the word 'shall' has been used in this proviso making it incumbent on the Commissioner not to revise an order which has been made more than three years previously. It is well settled principle of law that there can be no estoppel against a statute. It is contended on behalf or the Department that if this interpretation is adopted then the Commissioner will not be able to take any action, even when the matter has been brought to his notice within the period of three years and there is a clear case for taking such action against an assessee. The assessee may be able to avoid service of notice on him, notice being necessary in case it is proposed to pass an order prejudicial to him as proviso (1) of sec. 14 (1) requires that no order shall be passed prejudicial to a dealer without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Adopting this line of argument it is contended that the second proviso should be so construed that the Commissioner can revise the order at any time if he has taken some steps to revise it within the period of three years. We are of the opinion that it is not possible for us to twist the language in this manner. The language of the statute must be given effect to especially when the statute is a fiscal one. It is the duty of the revising authority to be circumspect in the matter. In the present case the Commissioner could have refused adjournments to the petitioner and not to have allowed the period of three years to expire. In this view of the matter the Additional Commissioner could not have revised on 21st July, 1960, the order of assessment passed on 17th September, 1956, by the Sales Tax Officer. It is contended before us that we should not interfere in our extra-ordinary jurisdiction in this matter as the conduct of the petitioner was such that he was instrumental in allowing the period of three years to expire. Apart from the fact that the petitioner asked for certain adjournments from time to time and the Additional Commissioner granted them we do not find any fraud or mis-representation on the part of the petitioner. We do not think that this is a case in which we should not interfere inspite of the fact that there has been an express violation of the provisions of law by the Department. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Additional Commissioner, Sales-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 21st July, 1960. In the circumstances of the case we do not allow any costs to the petitioner. . ;