Dave, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under sec. 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act No. XXIX, 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE two questions, which have been referred, are as follows : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order dated 17. 5. 56 granting- rebate to the petitioner can be revised under sec. 14 of the Act as amended in 1958 ? and (2) Whether under sec. 10 (5) of the Act as amended in 1958 the said order can be held to be illegal, improper or erroneous, even if held to be revisable as above ? In order to appreciate the questions of law involved, it would be proper to narrate here, in brief, the facts which have given rise to this reference. The petitioner Messrs. Chaturbhuj Rikhabdas is a firm carrying on cloth business at Bikaner and it is registered under sec. 6 of the Act. For the accounting year ending on 13th November, 1955 i. e. the assessment year 1955-56, it was assessed to pay sale tax amounting to Rs. 11,923/9/ -. The Sales Tax Officer allowed to the petitioner rebate on the said tax to the extent of Rs. 2,384/- at the rate of twenty per cent according to sec. 10 (5) of the Act as it stood on that date. Act No. XXIX of 1954 was amended by Act No. XXXVI of 1956 which came into force on 31st October, 1956. Sec. 10 (5) ran as follows before the said amendment : "sec. 10 (5) - In determining the tax for the year "1954-55", the assessing authority shall allow a rebate, "varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent", as may be found necessary, of the tax payable on imported goods, by a dealer who had in the stock on the day of enforcement of this Act, goods imported before that date. " By the amendment Act No. XXXVI, referred above, the figures "1955-56" were substituted for "1954-55". The words and figures "varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent" were substituted by "not exceeding 40 per cent" and it was also provided that these shall be deemed always to have been substituted. Moreover, after the word "date", the words "in respect of which import duty of customs had been paid in the State" were inserted and it was further provided that they shall be deemed always to have been inserted. Thus, after the amendment, sec. 10 (5) of the Act runs as follows : "sec. 10 (5)-in determining the tax for the year "1955-56, the assessing authority shall allow a rebate, not exceeding 40 per cent, as maybe found necessary, of the tax payable on imported goods, by a dealer who had in the stock on the day of enforcement of this Act, goods imported before that date, "in respect of which import duty of customs had been paid in the State. " In view of the said amendment, the Sales Tax Officer revised his order dated 17th May, 1956 and reduced the amount of rebate from Rs. 2,384/-to Rs. 798/14/-because he found that the petitioner had paid customs duty only to the extent of Rs. 798/14/ -. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ application in this Court challenging the validity of the revised order on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to revise his own order. That application was allowed by this Court on 10th April, 1958. The assessment order dated 8th December, 1956 was set aside and the previous order dated 17th May, 1956 was restored. At the same time, it was observed that the order dated 17th May, 1956 will remain in force until it is set aside according to law under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. See Firm Chaturbhuj Rikhabdass Vs. The State of Rajasthan (l ). Thereafter the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction suo-motu under sec. 14 of the Act came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to rebate exceeding Rs. 798/14/-and so he again reduced the amount of rebate to this extent. It was contended by the petitioner before him that he could exercise his revisional powers only within two years from the date of the order of the Sales Tax Officer and since that period had expired, he had no jurisdiction left to revise his order under sec. 14 of the Act. This objection was repelled. The petitioner presented an application before the said Commissioner to refer the disputed question of law to this Court, but his application was dismissed on 13th May, 1959. The petitioner then presented an application to this Court and it was allowed on 4th August, 1960. This is how these questions have come before us. Now, it would be proper to take up the first question first. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the original Act No. XXIX of 1954 the Commissioner could exercise his discretion under sec. 14 of the Act only within a period of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. It is further argued that although the said period of two years was substituted by three years by sec. 13a of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, the extended period was not available to the respondent. We have given due consideration to this argument and we think that there is no substance therein. It may be pointed out that the amendment, which was made by sec. 13-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, came into force from 1st April, 1958. The period of two years computed from 17th May, 1956 had not expired before the said amendment came into force. Thus when the period of limitation was extended by the Amendment Act even before the original period prescribed by Act No. XXIX came to an end, it was open to the Commissioner to revise the order within three years from the date of the original order. A similar question arose in Munaga Peraiah vs. The State of Andhara Pradesh (2) and it was held that "where the period of limitation prescribed by law was enlarged before the right of the assessing authority to re-assess was barred, it is the amended law that determined the liability of the assessee". Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. We, therefore, see no force in the contention raised by him. Now, coming to the second question, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the provisions of sec. 10 (5) of the Act, as it stood on 17th May, 1956, the rebate of Rs. 2,384/- allowed to him by the Sales Tax Officer was neither illegal nor improper nor erroneous and, therefore, that order was not revisable by the Commissioner. We have already set out above the provisions of sec. 10 (5) of the Act, as it stood when the order was passed on 17th May, 1956 and when the amendment was made by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act No. XXXVI of 1956. It is obvious that the order dated 17th May, 1956 was neither erroneous nor improper nor illegal on the date it was passed, because at that time the minimum rebate which could be claimed by an assessee was 20 per cent. This is clear from the words and figures "varying from 20 per cent to 40 percent" appearing in the section as it stood at that time. These words and figures were, however, substituted by the words and figures "not exceeding 40 per cent". This meant that after the amendment the assessee could not claim the minimum rebate of 30 per cent. In other words, the ceiling was kept in tact by the amendment but the minimum permissible rebate was totally reduced. Moreover, the addition of the words "in respect, of which import duty of customs had been paid in the State" created a position by which an assessee could not claim a rebate if the import duty of customs were not paid, because the rebate could be allowed only in respect of the import duty of customs which was paid by him. It is further significant that while making both the amendments, it was specifically provided by the legislature that the changes shall be deemed always to have been substituted. This makes it quite clear that both the amendments were to take effect retrospectively. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Commissioner had committed any mistake in revising the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 17th May, 1956. It is not suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had paid more than Rs. 798/14/- for customs duty. We accordingly answer both the questions in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. .;