- (1.) The petitioner has preferred these two petitions, wherein in original assessment of the year 2005, the assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed in the year 2008 and the assessee preferred revision petition before the revisional authority in the year 2010. According to the petitioner, in the said revision, after making endorsement of presentation of the revisions, no date was fixed which is required to be fixed by the revisional authority and thereafter also no intimation is given to the assessee of fixing of the date. However, after about three years the petitioner received a notice of garnishee order dated 15.1.2013. The petitioner challenged the said garnishee order dated 15.1.2013 in this petition. When the matters were taken up by this Court on 22.1.2013, ome impor (sic)nt facts came to the notice of this Court upon which, this Court passed a detailed order and directed the revisional authority the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand as well as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur to place before this Court the facts and figures of year-wise pendency of the revision petitions pending before the revisional authority and also to disclose that in how many revision petitions, initial date has not been fixed for the period more than six months. In response to the order dated 22.1.2013, both the above authorities have filed the counter affidavit. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order dated 22.1.2013:-- Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Revenue, it was the duty of the applicant in revisional petition to press for interim relief before the revisional authority which has not been done by the petitioner which appears from the facts of the case which indicate that the revision petition has been filed in the year 2010 and the present petition has been filed seeking a direction as contained in the order passed in the case of M/s Sai International in the year 2013. We are of the considered opinion that large number of cases are coming before this Court and also have come before the other High Courts which is apparent from the various orders referred above wherein the prayer for interim relief has not been considered resulting into passing of the order by the High Court against taking the coercive steps for recovery of tax amount or the demand raised by the Revenue. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that even if the assessee who prefers the revision petition before the revisional authority has not pressed for hearing of the revision petition, even then, it is the duty of the revisional court to manage its own affairs and cannot say that because the assessee did not ask for the hearing of the revision petition or the application for grant of interim relief, therefore, they were not under obligation to fix a date for hearing the revision or the application for grant of interim relief. Once date is fixed and applicant will not appear then only revisional authority may pass appropriate order but revisional authority cannot wait for moving of any application for listing the revision for any order. If this attitude is correct, then in that situation, the revision petition preferred by the revisionist may not be decided for decades because of non-filing of application for fixing the date in the revision petition. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the courts and the tribunals are not dependent upon the zeal and the efforts of the litigant to manage their own affairs and the authority in power is supposed to manage their own affairs and to decide the cases according to their own management system uninfluenced by the inaction of the litigant that is also the theme of the National Litigation Policy and now it has been adopted by the Central Government as well as by almost all the State Government. We are constrained to observe again here that by taking such type of objectionable attitude of non-consideration of the application for interim prayer virtually the authorities are helping the persons who want to avoid the payment of tax by compelling the court to pass interim order against the recovery or against taking coercive measures. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, as well as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, are directed to state and place before this Court the year-wise pendency of the revision petition before the revisional authority, and also directed to place on record that in how many revision petitions initial date has been fixed for the period more than six months. It appears from the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who has filed the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.-1-revisional authority that in a large number of revision petitions notices (total 374) have been served upon large number of revision petitioners by publication of notices in newspapers. Notices for above 374 revisions pending upto since last twelve years were published between 4.12.2012 to 3.2.2013 only. By first publication, notices were published in the news papers for 30 revision petitions which is pending since 2001 to 2004. In second advertisement in the news paper, notices were issued for 58 revision petitions of the year 2004. By third advertisement, notices for 50 revision petitions were published for the revision petitions of the year 2004 and then by fourth advertisement, notices were published for 80 revision petitions and that too for the year 2004. By fifth advertisement, notices were issued of the revision petitions for the year 2006 as well as of 2001, which were total 58. By sixth advertisement, notices were issued for total 29 revision petitions which are of the year 2006 and one of the year 2010. By sixth advertisement, notices were issued for 53 revision petitions of the year 2004 and 2006.
(2.) From the reply affidavit, it appears that the revisional authority disposed of 516 cases within the period of only eight months i.e., from July, 2012 to 22nd February, 2013. During this period, the revisional authority decided 326 old cases, 111 cases of the year 2012 and 79 cases of the year 2013. So far as the pendency is concerned at the time of filing of the affidavit, all revision petitions starting from the earliest year 2001 to 2005 have already been decided. The total pendency of the year 2012, since 2006, has been shown to be 646. It has been stated that out of these cases in 98 cases, no notices were issued. It has not been made clear that for what period, the notices have not been issued in these 98 cases. That was the relevant fact, as this Court directed by order dated 22.1.2013 to also give the details of the revision petitions in which the initial date was not fixed for a period more than six months. Be that as it may, as per the affidavit in all the 98 revision petitions, now the notices have been issued for hearing of those matters in the month of March, 2013.
(3.) The above figures clearly indicate that the workload before the revisional authority was not too much even in the time when in fact there was no systematic way of fixing of the dates in the revision petitions. The another important fact is that the revisional authority in eight months has decided 516 revision petitions and disposed of the revision petition which is pending since 2001 to 2005 leaving nil pendency for these years. This fact clearly indicate that if the revision petitions would have been heard regularly, the pendency before the revisional authority would have been virtual minimal which may not have been even in 3 figures.;