LexANANDJI HARIDAS & CO. (P.) LTD. versus S.P. KUSHARE, S. T. O. NAGPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ANANDJI HARIDAS & CO. (P.) LTD. A I!. S. P. KUSHARE, S. T. O. NAGPUR & ORS. September 28, 1967 B tK. N. WANCHOO, c. J., R. S. llACHAWAT, v. G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J RAMASWAMI, Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act (21 of 1947) as amend- ed by the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Validating Provisions and Amend- ment) Act (22 oj 1959) ss. 11(4)(a), 11A(1) and (3)-Scetion 11(4)(a), if violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. Notices under s. 11(4)(a)-0ne notice for severql quarters-In- applicable portion of printed notice not strnck off-Assessment year, wrongly mentioned in notice-Notice, if valid. C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Rules, r. 32-30 days notice prescribed for submitting explanation-Notice giving shorter period-Validity. Under s.10(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, every dealer required so to do by the Commissioner by notice, and every registered dealer, shall furnish such returns by such dates c D and to such authority as may be prescribed, and r.19 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that every registered dealer should furnish quarterly returns· accompanied by a treasury chal}an in proof of payment of the tax payable. If the registered dealer does not so furnish his return, the Connnissioncr may, after giving the dealer E a reasonable opportunity assess hin1 to th(-: best of his judgment under s.11(4) (a). Rule 32 pre,cribes that ordinarily not less than 30 days notice should be given to an asscssee for submitting his explana- tion, before action is taken under s.11(4)(a). In 1953, s.llA was added to the Act. Under s.llA(l) if in conse- quence of any information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any turnover of a dealer has escaped F assessment, the Commissioner may, \vithin three calendar years from the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportu- nity of being heard, proceed to re-assess the tax payable on any such turnover and also direct the dealer to pay a penalty. In 1959 s.11A(3) was added by which, nothing in s.IIA(l) shall apply to any proceeding including any notice under s.11, that is, the period of limitation of 3 years mentioned in s.llA(l) shall not apply to a G proceedmg under s.11(4\(a) on best judgment basis. The appellants were registered dealers. Their assessment year was from !st November to 31st October. They submitted their q~arterly returns upto 30th April 1952. Since no returns were sub- mitted there~fter, on 13th September 1955, the assessing authority issued a notice wit.h respect to the period 1st January 1953 to 31st December 1953 callmg upon them to show cause why action should !'Ot be taken agamst them under s.11(4) (a). A similar notice was H issued on 27th October 195if for the period !st January· 1954 to 31st n·cernbcr 1954, and on 7th July 1956, for the period !st January 1955 w 31.st. Decem_be~ 1955, The appellants repeatedly took time for subm1ttmg thetr explanation. In 1958, fresh notices were issued for L/P(N)78CI--3(•) 661 662 [1%8j l :<.c.1~. A the calendar years 1952 to 1955 and the appellants raised the objec- ti<in, for the first time, that their assessment year was not the calendar year, but 1st November to 31st October. In view of that objection, the first respondent issued another S<)t of notices on 8th July 1959 for the periods 1st May 1952 to 31st October 1952, !st November 1952 to 31'! October 1953, 1st November 1953 to 31st October 1954 and 1st November 1954 to 31st October 1955 respectively. The appellants contended that those notices were barred by the B 3-year period of limitation under s.llA(l), but the assessing authority assessed the appellants on best judgment basis under s. 11(4) (a). The appellants thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court challeng .. ing the validity of the notices and the order of assessment, but the petitions were dismissed. In appeals to this Court, the appellant contended that: (1) Section 11(4). (a) read with s.llA(3) contravenes Art. 14 of the C Constitution, because, a registered dealer who had failed to submit his return could be proceeded against either under s.11(4)(11) or s.llA(1), but, whereas s.l IA(l) provides a 3-year period of limita- tion, a proceeding unde1· s. 11(4)(a) could be initiated at any time in view of s.11A(3); (2) the notices of 1959 were barred by time; and (.'l) the notices of 1955 and 1956 were not valid, because, (a) the issue of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.