AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J
Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent .
Present revision under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "VAT Act") has been filed assailing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 12.11.2018 in Appeal No.6 of 2018 under Section 42 of the Act.
The present revision was admitted on following questions of law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the application filed by the dealer for Certificate of Entitlement on the application submitted by the dealer on 9.5.17 which was highly belated by 8 years, 2 months, 5 days and in pursuance of the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority on 13.2.2009 ?"
The case in nutshell is that respondent-assessee established a new unit, and exemption was granted under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter called as "Trade Tax Act") on 6.3.2000 for a period 19.3.1999 to 18.3.2014. The exemption limit was Rs.98,27,23,972/-. As the respondent dealer/assessee was availing benefit upto 31.12.2007. From 1.1.2008 provisions of U.P. VAT Act came into force.
Section 42 of the VAT Act provided "treatment of industrial units availing exemption or reduction in the rate of tax under erstwhile Act" for which the dealer had to apply for issuance of Certificate of Entitlement. On the basis of certificate issued by the Divisional Level Committee (DLC) under Section 4-A of the Trade Tax Act on 6.3.2000, the Certificate of Entitlement under Section 42 of the Act was granted on 10.11.2008. Subsequently the dealer/assessee made further investment in the unit and had applied for enhancement of exemption limit, as per notification issued by the State Government. Application so filed was allowed by the Additional Director Industries (DLC) on 13.2.2009 and additional limit was increased by Rs.6,48,78,870/-. After the grant of eligibility certificate the dealer/assessee applied before the Deputy Commissioner/Joint Commissioner for issuance of Certificate of Entitlement and not before the Commissioner Commercial Tax as per Section 42 read with Rule 70 of the Act. It was on 18.4.2017 that dealer/assessee moved an application before the Commissioner for issuance of amended Certificate of Entitlement in pursuance of the Eligibility Certificate granted by the DLC on 13.2.2009.
On 26.6.2018 an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay was moved by the assessee before the Commissioner. By an order dated 23.5.2017, the application for Certificate of Entitlement was rejected on the ground of delay. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Commercial Tax Tribunal and on 29.5.2018 appeal of the assessee was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to decide afresh. Pursuant to said order the Commissioner again rejected the application on 5.9.2018, against which an appeal was filed by the assessee-dealer before Commercial Tax Tribunal and the appeal has been allowed on 12.11.2018 directing the Commissioner to issue Certificate of Entitlement of Rs.6,48,78,870/-.
Present revision has been filed on the ground that Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal of assessee and had wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 42(3)(a) of the VAT Act read with Rule 70. While case of the assessee-dealer is that their case is covered under Section 42(9) of the VAT Act and when the application was moved before the Joint Commissioner at that relevant point of time, Rule 70(2) and 70(3) was not in existence.
Before proceeding to decide the issue in dispute, it would be relevant to have a glance of certain provisions of the VAT Act.
Section 2(g) defines "Commissioner" as under-
(g) "Commissioner" means the person appointed by the State Government as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and includes a Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, an Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Section 2(k) defines "erstwhile Act" as under-
(k) "erstwhile Act" means the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948)
Section 42 of the VAT Act reads as under-
Treatment of industrial units availing exemption or reduction in the rate of tax under erstwhile Act.
(1)..........
(2)..........
(3)(a) the industrial unit availing or granted benefit of exemption from, or reduction in the rate of tax under the erstwhile Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the turnover of sales of manufactured goods or turnover of purchase of any raw material, processing material, consumable stores, fuel other than petrol and diesel, lubricant required for use in manufacture of goods or in the packing of goods manufactured by such industrial unit or both, and
(i) whose facility of exemption or reduction in the rate of tax is base on the fixed capital investment as provided under the erstwhile Act or notification issued thereunder; or
(ii) an industrial unit purchased from the State Government or any corporation or undertaking owned or controlled by the State Government and to whom exemption or reduction in the rate of tax has been granted under the erstwhile Act,
may apply to the Commissioner for issue of the Certificate of Entitlement in the prescribed form and in prescribed manner.]
(4)........
(5).........
(6).........
(7).........
(8).........
(9) Where the amount or the period for exemption or reduction in the rate of tax changes on account of any valid reason otherwise, the Commissioner shall suo motu or on an application of the industrial unit, amend the certificate of entitlement accordingly.
Rule 2(b) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred as the "Rules") defines "Additional Commissioner" as under:
"(b) "Additional Commissioner" means any person appointed by the State Government as Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to perform the assigned to him and to exercise the power of an Additional Commissioner.
Rule 2(k) "Deputy Commissioner" as under-
(k) "Deputy Commissioner" means any person appointed by the State Government as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and includes:-
(i) a Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) posted in a circle to perform the functions and to exercise powers of an assessing authority ;
(ii) a Deputy Commissioner (Check-post), a Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) or a Deputy Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch) empowered under these rules to perform the functions and to exercise powers under sections 45 and 48;
(iii) Deputy Commissioner (Registration) posted in a circle to deal with issue, suspension, cancellation and other matters related with registration of dealers and to perform the functions and to exercise powers of an assessing authority by virtue of his posting in such circle ;
(iv) Deputy Commissioner (Administration) posted in a circle to discharge the duties assigned to him in respect of general administration and to exercise powers of an assessing authority by virtue of his posting in such circle;
(v) Deputy Commissioner (Tax Recovery) having powers of an Assistant Collector and empowered to recover amount of tax, fee, penalty or any other sum fallen due under the Act; and to exercise powers of an assessing authority by virtue of its posting in such circle.
Rule 2(n) defines "Joint Commissioner" as under:
(n) "Joint Commissioner" means any person appointed by the State Government as a Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and includes:-
(i) a Joint Commissioner (Executive) of a region;
(ii)a Joint Commissioner (Appeal) empowered to exercise powers of an appellate authority under section 55;
(iii) a Joint Commissioner (Check-post), a Joint Commissioner (Enforcement) or a Joint Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch) empowered to exercise powers under sections 45 and 48;
(iv) a Joint Commissioner (assessment) posted in a corporate circle empowered to exercise the power of an assessing authority.
Rule 3 defines power to create Zone, Region, Range and Circle as under:-
Power to create Zone, Region, Range and Circle.-
(1) The State Government may by notification in the Gazette-
(a) create or abolish the -
(i) Zone of an Additional Commissioner;
(ii) Region of a Joint Commissioner (Executive), a Joint Commissioner (Appeals);
(iii) range of a Deputy Commissioner (Check Post), a Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) or a Deputy Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch); and notify the circles or part of a circle or sector that are included in such zone, region or range, as the case may be.
(b) specify the circles or part of a circle or a sector that are included in the jurisdiction of a member Tribunal.
(2)...............
(3)...............
Rule 4 of the Rules provides for Authorities under the Act. It reads as under:-
(1)..........
(2)..........
(3)..........
(4).........
(5) The Commissioner shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to him under the Act and the rules framed there under and shall have all powers exercisable by subordinate authorities other than the appellate authority under section 55.
(6) The Commissioner may issue instructions consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under to his subordinate officers, generally regulating the procedure to be followed in carrying out the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under:
(7) Subject to general control of the Commissioner-
(a) Special Commissioner and all Additional Commissioners shall also exercise powers vested in the Commissioner;
(b) All Joint Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners shall exercise the powers conferred upon and perform the duties assigned to them by or under the Act or the rules made there under.
(c) All other officers shall exercise the powers and perform the duties as may be assigned to them under the Act and rules framed there under.
(8)...............
(9)...............
(10)............
(12)............
Rule 70 provides for "Tax Deferment and Entitlement Certificate asunder:
(1) An industrial unit entitled for refund of net tax payable or earned put tax credit or both, as the case may be, under section 42, may apply in Form XLV duly filled in and signed by the person authorized under sub- rule(6) of rule 32, to the Commissioner for issue of Certificate of Entitlement within 90 days from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax (Third Amendment), Rules, 2011 or within 90 days from the date of receipt of the exemption certificate or the eligibility certificate, whichever is later;
PROVIDED that where industrial unit is eligible for refund of earned input tax credit on the purchase of raw material, processing material, consumable stores, fuel other than petrol and diesel, lubricant required for use in manufacturing of goods and packing material used in the packing of manufactured goods, may apply to the Commissioner for issue of new or amended Certificate of Entitlement within 60 sixty days of publication of this rule:
PROVIDED FURTHER that where the amount of exemption or period of exemption of goods mentioned or described in the Certificate of Entitlement changes or varies on account of any order or direction of any competent court or authority or in compliance with any condition of exemption or otherwise, the industrial unit may apply within 60 days from the end of assessment year in which such event has taken place requiring amendment or within 60 days from the date of publication of this rule whichever is later;
PROVIDED ALSO that if the Commissioner is satisfied that there is sufficient cause which prevented the dealer to submit the application within the stipulated period, he may condone the delay in filing the application.
(2) Before submitting the application under sub-rule (1) a copy of the application along with enclosures, if any, shall be served to the concerned assessing authority and certified copy of such receipt shall be annexed to the application.
(3) The assessing authority shall, after examining relevant record and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard if necessary, send to the Commissioner a report in Form XLVI within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application.
(4)..........
(5)..........
(6)..........
(7)..........
(8)..........
(9)..........
(10)........
(11).........
(12).........
Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel has submitted that under Section 42(3)(a)(i) the dealer/assessee was required to apply for Certificate of Entitlement pursuant to grant of Eligibility Certificate under Section 4-A of the Trade Tax Act by the DLC, before the Commissioner, within 90 days as provided under Rule 70(1), and as the dealer had applied before the Joint Commissioner on 25.2.2009, as such the Commissioner had rightly rejected the application for grant of Certificate of Entitlement by order dated 23.5.2017, and again on 5.9.2018. He further contended that Commissioner has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, and further Rule 4(5) of the Rules gives the power exercisable by a Commissioner, and under Sub Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 4, it is the Commissioner who issues instructions and has general control over the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, and as such the application made to such authorities cannot be considered by them unless and until the power is so delegated to them. Further, it is only the Commissioner who is to grant the Certificate of Entitlement in pursuance of Section 42(3)(a) and the Tribunal was not correct to hold that Joint Commissioner is included in the definition of the Commissioner as envisaged under section 2(g) of the Act, and further the delay of more than 8 years in moving the application before the Commissioner by the dealer/assessee could not be condoned. He further submitted that the Tribunal was not correct to record the finding that there was no provision under Section 42 of the Act or Rule 70 of the Rules, which debars Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner from exercising power of Commissioner. In fact, it is only the Commissioner, who can exercise the power for grant of entitlement certificate. Had the intention of the Legislature was to authorize the Joint or Deputy Commissioner, it could have been in the proviso or provided in the Section.
Sri Pandey further submitted that where there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Act, it is to be read in its literal sense and no other interpretation should be allowed.
Per contra, Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer /assessee submitted that the case of the respondent is not covered under Section 42(3)(a) of the VAT Act, and it is covered under Section 42(9) of the Vat Act, which stipulates that where the amount or the period for exemption or reduction in rate of tax changes on account of any valid reason or otherwise, the Commissioner shall suo moto or on an application of the industrial unit, amend the certificate of entitlement.
In the present case, as the DLC had already granted the eligibility certificate on 13.2.2009 whereby additional benefit of Rs.6,48,78,870/- was granted to the dealer, it was for the Commissioner to suo moto issued the amended certificate of entitlement to the respondent-assessee without waiting for any application. He further submitted that the order of the DLC had attained finality and copy of the same was already forwarded to the Commissioner, so it was only a routine exercise and the Commissioner should have granted amended certificate of entitlement, as no further adjudication was required, and it was just an endorsement of the decision taken on 13.2.2009. He further submitted that as far as the application filed before the Joint Commissioner on 25.2.2009 is concerned, Section 2(g) of the Act, which is the charging Section defines Commissioner, which includes Joint Commissioner. He further submitted that Section 2(k) provides for any Act done in pursuance of the earlier Trade Tax Act was to continue under the new Act.
Sri Agarwal, further invited attention of the Court to Rule 70(1), Third Proviso, which provided that the Commissioner had the power to condone the delay and the said proviso was inserted on 30.3.2011 and there was no such provision at the date of filing of the application. He has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2009(2)SCC 90. The relevant paragraph nos.29, 32, 33 and 35 are extracted below:
"29. It is now a well established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally.[See CTT v. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657 para 26]; TISCO v. State of Jharkhand ((2005) 4 SCC 272); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. ((1996) 1 SCC 108]; Novopan India Ltd. vs. CCE & Customs[1994 Supp.(3) SCC 606]; A.P. Steel Re-Roling Mill Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [(2007) 2 SCC 725]; and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. CCE (2006) 6 SCC 213].
We do not see any conflict in the ratio laid down in the aforementioned two decisions. The question of applying the principle of strict or liberal interpretation would arise only when the plain meaning attached thereto is found to be absurd or anomalous. If a plain meaning given to the provision for the purpose of considering as to whether the applicant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the notification or not is found to be clear, purpose and object the notification seeks to achieve must be given effect to.
The State by enacting Section 4-A of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules intended to encourage setting up of new industries. Such industrial units, however, were required to be set up either on the land owned by the applicant or taken on lease for a period of not less than five years or on the land allotted. However, so far as the land allotted in favour of the applicant by the State or State owned Corporation or statutory Corporation is concerned, no period is required to be fixed under the law. What is required is an allotment of land by issuance of a letter of allotment. Execution of a deed of lease may be a condition for grant of allotment but the grant is not subject to the date of lease or the period specified therein. The statutory rule as also the notification point out a clear distinction between a deed of lease which may be obtained from a private person and the letter of allotment granted by the State or statutory Corporation . The reason for making such a distinction is not far to seek. Whereas in the case of the former, a registered deed of lease is required to be executed if it is for a period of more than one year, in the latter it is not.
It is not a case where the application was incomplete by itself. It was also not a case where having regard to the provisions of the Act, Rules, Notifications as also the information required to be furnished in terms of paragraph 10 of Form 46, any other or further information was necessary to be obtained or furnished. If the appellant, thus, had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of exemption, it had acquired a right in respect thereof and we see no reason why it should have been deprived therefrom. It is in that sense the exemption notification was required to be construed liberally in favour of the appellant. {See State of Orissa V. TATA Sponge Iron Ltd. [(2007) (8) SCC 189 para 21]."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant provisions of Law, the question which arises for consideration is whether the eligibility certificate granted by the DLC under Section 4-A of the Trade Tax Act, which was to continue under the new Act, i.e., VAT Act in the shape of certificate of entitlement, as envisaged under Section 42(2) of the Act, could in "stricto senso" undergo the strict and rigid procedure as provided under Section 43(3)(a) of the U.P.VAT Act read with Rule 70(1) of the U.P.VAT Rules or being just a continuation of the earlier grant of benefit to continue with amendment of the authority in view of Section 42(9) of the UP VAT Act.
Section 2(g) of the Act defines the taxing authority appointed by the State Government and Commissioner includes Special Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner.
Further Section 2(k) is in regard to the erstwhile Act i.e., the Trade Tax Act. This has to be read with Section 42 of the Act, which is in regard to the treatment of the industrial units availing exemption or reduction in the rate of tax under the previous Act. Under the previous Act Section 4-A provided for exemption of tax to the new industrial unit by the State Government, pursuant to which the respondent-assessee was granted the certificate on 6.3.2000, which is not in dispute. This certificate was granted recognition by the Commissioner after the enforcement of the new Act, in form of certificate of entitlement. Subsequently, the additional exemption of Rs.6,48,78,870/- was granted by the DLC, which was never challenged, but the dispute is in regard to the grant of amended certificate of entitlement pursuant to the provision of Sections 42 of the VAT Act, which enable's the continuation of the previous benefit so granted. Section 42(3)(a) stipulates that those industrial units which was granted benefit of exemption from deduction of tax in view of the earlier Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act may apply to the Commissioner for issue of certificate of entitlement in prescribed form and in prescribed manner. The said provision of the Act nowhere restrict for any grant of certificate of entitlement to those industrial units already availing the benefit under Section 4-A of the Act nor it narrow down the scope for grant of such certificate by the authority so enumerated in the said provision. It only enable the said industrial unit to apply before such authority for the grant of entitlement certificate which is in form of extension of the earlier certificate so granted under the old Act or said to be a recognition of the earlier certificate by the new Act.
Argument of Sri Agarwal that the case of assessee/dealer is covered under Section 42(9) of the Act has force as sub-Section (9) categorically provides that the amount or the period for exemption or reduction in the rate of tax, the Commissioner shall suo moto or an application of the industrial unit amend the certificate of entitlement. Meaning thereby the duty is cast upon the Commissioner to suo moto exercise his power and grant amended certificate of entitlement, which is recognition of the earlier eligibility certificate granted under Section 4-A of the Trade Tax Act by the DLC, and in case the Commissioner fails to exercise such power, the industrial unit is also granted a liberty to make an application.
In the present case, certificate of entitlement was already granted by the Commissioner to the assessee on 10.11.2008, it was the subsequent exemption which was granted by the DLC and additional limit was increased by Rs.6,48,78,870/- that the assess applied for amended certificate of entitlement. As, DLC has already forwarded the additional grant to the Commissioner, he could have exercised his power under Sub-section 9 of Section 42, which mandates him to amend the certificate of entitlement, and, in case he does not proceed to do so, the assess can file an application.
The provisions of Section 42(3)(a) of the Act has to be read in harmony with sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act, as word 'may' occurs in sub Section 3(a) of Section 42 of the Act, while the word 'shall' has been incorporated by the Legislature in sub section (9) of Section 42, meaning thereby that the duty is cast upon the Commissioner to amend certificate of entitlement to those industrial units already having been granted the eligibility certificate under Section 4-A by the provisions of the Trade Tax Act, and also the certificate of entitlement.
If the argument of Sri Pandey, learned standing counsel is accepted then the same would amount to grant to fresh certificate of entitlement to an industrial unit, which will be same as an eligibility certificate granted under the previous Act and will make the very object of Section 42 of the new Act redundant, as the said Section is in regard to the treatment of Industrial Units of availing exemption or reduction in tax which had been granted by the earlier Act.
Thus it is clear that provisions of Sub-section 9 of Section 42 are applicable in the present case, and not Sub-section 3(a) of Section 42.
The very object and purpose of the Legislature was to see the continuity of benefits so granted to any new Industrial Unit to continue under the new Act and the same cannot be curtailed by any technicality of law. If the arguments led by the State is accepted, then the same would be detrimental to the very Industrial Policy of the State Government, as no new unit would be established in the State due to uncertainty in the taxing statute. The Legislature was conscious of the fact, as such the provisions of Section 42 was incorporated so as to bring continuity and harmony between the old Act and the new Act, so that the benefit granted to any industrial unit in the State remains the same.
Thus, the argument of the learned standing counsel cannot be accepted to the extent that the Tribunal committed any error in directing for the grant of certificate of entitlement to the assessee-dealer rejecting the finding recorded by the Commissioner as far as the delay in filing the appropriate application before him by the dealer.
It is not in dispute that the assessee/dealer after the grant of exemption certificate by the DLC on 13.2.2009, immediately applied for the grant of certificate of entitlement before the Joint Commissioner on 25.2.2009, and thereafter an application by the dealer before the Commissioner on 18.4.2017/9.5.2017 cannot be scored off on the ground of placing the same before the wrong forum, as the dealer had approached the Joint Commissioner within time and it was for the Joint Commissioner to take action either by rejecting it or by forwarding it to the Commissioner which was not done by him. The order rejecting the application for certificate of entitlement by the Commissioner on the ground that it was highly barred by time, by 8 years, two months and 5 days is not sustainable as the Commissioner should have considered the fact that the application was in time before the Joint Commissioner and if the same was wrongly filed then the same should not have been rejected or had been referred to him.
The finding recorded by the Commissioner to the extent that grant of certificate of entitlement only by Commissioner in view of Section 42 is also not correct.
Commissioner has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. Rule 2(b), 2(k) and 2(n) defines Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. Further, Rule 3(3) provides for distribution of jurisdiction by the Commissioner to such Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners.
It is undisputed fact that the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner includes the Commissioner, but Rule 3 and 4, provides for power of the Commissioner regarding distribution of work.
Argument of Sri Pandey, to the extent, that it is the Commissioner who allots the work to Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner cannot be doubted in view of Rule 3(3), but Section 2(g) which is the charging section defines the word "Commissioner" which includes Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. Section 42 nowhere restricts the power exercised by the said authorities i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. However, in the present case, the application moved before the Joint Commissioner was neither forwarded to the Commissioner, nor the Commissioner exercised suo moto power as envisaged under Sub-section 9 of Section 42, and it was only on the ground of delay that the application of assessee for the amendment of certificate of entitlement was rejected. The Apex Court in case of G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd (supra) has held that where an assessee "fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of exemption, it had acquired a right in respect thereof and we see no reason why it should have deprived therefrom".
It is not in dispute that respondent-assessee is not entitled for eligibility certificate/certificate of entitlement, the only ground of rejection by the authorities are for moving the application beyond time, once the assessee had fulfilled all the criteria and was granted exemption by the DLC, no ground exists for denial of the same on the ground of limitation.
Further the Apex Court in case of State of Orissa and others Vs. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 189 held as under :-
" It is furthermore a well-settled principle of law that an exemption notification must be liberally constructed. (See Commercial of Customs (Imports) v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Assn., CCE v. Hira Cement and P.R. Prabhakar v. CIT.) The said principle, therefore, applies on all fours in the present case."
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly directed the Commissioner to grant amended certificate of entitlement to the respondent-dealer, who is entitled for the same and the findings recorded by the Commissioner Commercial Tax in regard to the delay of 8 years, 2 months and 5 days is not sustainable. The question stands answered in affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The revision stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost.