LexGHANSHYAM DAS versus REGIONAL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, NAGPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 August 16 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] . GHANSHYAM DAS v. REGIONAL ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, NAGPUR (S. K. DAs, AcTING C.J., K. SuBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) • Sales Tax-Assessnient of turnover escaping assessment- "Escaped Assesstnent"-Meaning of-Assessment proceedings in res- pect of a registered dcaler-Comn1encen1ent of-Central Provin- ces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XX/ of 1947), ss. 10(1), 11-A. The appellant was a registered dealer carrying on business in bidis. For the year 1949-50, i.e., for the period from Octo- ber 22, 1949 to November 9, 1950 he submitted only one re- turn on October 5, 1950 for one quarter and defaulted in res- pect of the other quarters. He \Vas served a notice on August 13, 1954 under s. 11(1) and (2) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax -Act, 1947, in respect of the turnover for the said period. There after, he filed the returns, but in the assess1nent proceedings he contended inter alia, that the proceedings before the sales tax commissioner \Vere barred by time. This contention was rejected and his tax liability was detern1ined. Then. the appellant moved t'ne I-Iigh Court in writ petition. In the other appeal No. 102/1961, .the appellant had not filed :1ny return for the year 1950-51 i.e. for "the period from November 10, 1950 to Oc· tober 31., 1951. He was served a notice on October 15, 1954, under s. 11 ( 4) of the Act, The said notice was within 3 years from October 16, 1951 which fell within the 4th quaner of the concerned year. The appellant then, filed his returns under pro- test and contended that the assessment proceedings were bar- red ·by limitation under s. il(A) of' the Act. This plea was re- jected and his tax liability was detennined. The appellant then, filed another writ petition for a si.milar relief. Both the writ petitions were heard together and the learned single Judge relying on a decision in Firm Sheonarayan Matadin v. Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, quashed the said assessrrients. The respondent then, filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench and by a common judgn1ent the orders of the learned single Judge· were set aside. In this Court, the appellant contended : (I) the expression "escaped assessment" in s. '11-A of the Act would apply also to a case where there was no assessment at all ; (2) even if the first assessment proceedings were pending be- fore tbe appropriate authority, ·it could only nlake the assessment within three years fi:-om the date of the commencement of the said proceedings, which would start only after the appropriate authority issued a notice under s. 10( 1) or s; 11(2) or s. 11 (5) <_?f the Act; (3) in the present case no proceedings in respect of the said assessment were pending and ( 4) as only a part of the· fourth quarter in the second appeal falls within three years, i ,;'I - 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 437 the proceedings in respect of the said entire quarter would be barred under s. 11-A of the Act and, in any view only the turn- over escaped in respect of the period between November 10, 1950 to October 31, 1951 could be assessed. The respondent mainly contended that whatever inay be said in the case of an unregistered dealer, in the case of a registered dealer the pro- ceedings commence fro1n the date fixed in the registration certi- ficate within \vhich the said dealer has a statutory obligation to fur- nish his return. Held; (Raghubar Dayal, J. dissenting) ; The expression "escaped assessment" in s. 11-A of the Act includes that of a turnover \vhich has not been assessed at all, because for one reason or other no assessn1ent proceedings \Vere initiated and therefore, no assessment was n1ade in respect thereof. Comn1issioner of Income-tax, Bon1bay v. Pirojbai "l'l. Contrac- tor, (1937) 5 I.T.R. 318, Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Com- 1nissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, [1959] Supp. - S.C.R. 10 Mahnrajadhira1 Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, [ 1960] 1 S.C.R. 332, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. 1Varset! Nagsee Ct Co. [19601 3 S.C.R. 988 and State of Madras v. Balu Chettiar, (1956) 7 S.T.C. 519, relied on. The assess1nent proceedings ' under the sales tax must he held to be pending from the time the said proceedings were initiated until they \Vere terminated by a final order of assessment. Before the final order of assessment, it c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.