LexM/S. DALURAM PANNALAL MODI versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196J Firm Radha !\isl.an (Dttta.std1 RtPrt· stnttd by li~ri KisMn v. Admitiistralot, Muni- tipal Commilttt, I.udhi1na Subba Ran J. 1963 March 8 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. present case the mistake, if any, committed in imposing the terminal tax can only be corrected in the manner rrcscribed by the Act. The appellants have misconceived their remedy in filing the suit in the civil Court. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is correct. In the result, thr appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. M/s. DALURAM PANNALAL MODI v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ETC. (A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANcnoo and K. c. DAS G"CPTA JJ.) SaU.. Tax-Escaptd As81W3ment-Re-assessmnt-Power8 and duties-Deltgation o/-Madh!fa Prade.h General Saks 1'ax Act, 1!158 (M. P. 2 of /9.50), "· 19, 30. Section 19 of the M, P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 empowers the Commissioner, if he is satisfied that any sale or purchase of goods has em•ped assessment, to re.assess the tax payable and to levy a penalty. Section 30 empowers the Commissioner to "delegate any of hi! powers and duties under this Act.'' The Commis,ioncr delegated to AS!istant Commissioners his "powers and duties" to make an assessment or reassessment of tax or penaJty and to exercise all other powers under ss. 18, 19 and 20, The A'5istant Commissioner gave a notice to the appellant that he was sati<fied that sales from 1.4.1957 to 31.3.1958 had escaped assessment and assessed him to an additional tax and penalty. The appellant contented that the Commissioner had delegated only his power under '· 19 and not the duties and accordingly the Assistant Commiosioner could validly re-assess the a1.pellan1 - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 287 only after the Commissioner had been satisfied personally that sales had escaped assessment. Held, that the order of re-assessment and penalty made by the Assistant Commissioner was valid. The requirement of his satisfaction before exercising the power to re-assess under s. 19 did not impose any duty on the Commissioner ; it was really a condition or limitation of the exercise of that power. Even if this requirement a; to satisfaction be consi- dered as a duty, it was an adjunct to the exercise of the power to re-assess and it passed necessarily with the delegation of the power. It would make no difference even if the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power were more than one as they had no independent existence and were merely attached to the power. Mungoni v. Attorney-General [1960] A. C. 336 and Hazrat Syed Shah Mastarshid Ali Al Quadari v. Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 759, relied on. CIVIL APPELLA.TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 870 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 5, J 962, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in M. P. No. 14of1962. U. M. Trivedi, Shanti Swarup Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. M. Adhikari, Advocate-General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and l .. N. Shroff, for the respondents. 1963. March 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J.-The appellant had been assessed to sales tax for the year 1957-58 under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. This Act was repealed on April 1, 1959, by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. On December 31, 1960, a notice was issued to the appellant by an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the 1958 Act 1963 Mis Daluram PannolaJ Modi v. 4sJistant Commissio· ntr oj Salu Tax SarktJr /. 1963 M /s. Da/urom Ptlllnalal Alodi v. Aui1ta11t CommiJsio· rur oj Salts T tv: Sarkar J, 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964]VOL. wherein it was stated, "I am satisfied that your sale during the period from l.4-l!J57 to 31-3-58 ........... . has escaped assessment and thereby rendered yourself liable to be reassessed under s. l!l (I) of the Act." Pursuant to this notice fresh assessment proceedings were started by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the sales in the year 1!!57-58 and on March 31, 1961, he made an order imposing an additional tax on the appellant of Rs. :H ,250/- for that year and a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. The appel- lant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ of certiorari to quash the order but was un- successfu I. It has now appealed to this Court against the judgment of the High Court. We will first set out the mater
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.