M/S. JAIPURIA BROTHERS CO. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 21-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

780 
M/S. JAIPURIA BROTllERS CO. 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & OTHERS 
October 21, 1964 
(K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI JI.) 
U.P. Sales Tax Act (U.P. Act 15 of 1948)", s. 21-B Btfor• and aft•r 
amendment by U.P. Act 19 of 195~Scopt of. 
The sales tax officer made a best judgment assessment with respect to 
rhe turnover of the appellant under s. 21 of the U.P. Sales Ta1 Act, 1948. 
The order was set aside by the lppellale au1horicy. 
The revisional autho-
rity revised the appellale order and remanded lhe case to the sal<11 tax 
officer for making a fresh assessment. 
When 1he officer issued a notioe for 
assessment, in pursuance of that order, the assessee contended that as the 
original assessment had been set aside, no proceeding in connection with 
it was pending, and that reassessment was barred because, more than 
three years had elapsed since the end of the year of assessment. The officer 
rejected the contentions. 
The assessee filed a writ petition in the High 
Court and ii was allowed by a Single Judge. The S1a1e appealed to the 
Division Bcilch. 
While the appeal was pending, s. 21 was extemively 
amended in 1956 and the legislature gave retrospective operation to the 
amended section. 
As a result of the amendment, it was provided that when 
the officer proceeded in pursuance of a direction given by the revisional 
authority, no period of limitation applied. 
The Division Bench, how-
ever, relied upon the unamended section and set aside the order of the 
Single Judge, holding, that even under the unamended section, no period 
of limitalion applied when the assessing officer was directed to proceed by 
an order of the revisional au1hori1y. 
The assessee appealed to the Supreme 
Court. 
HELD : The appeal should be dismissed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Though the High C<lurt wa.• in error in ils interpretation of the un-
amended section on the principle of Commissionr.r of Income-ttu, Bombay 
Prrsid,ncy and Adrn v. Khemclrand Ramdas, (LR. 65 I.A. 236) still the 
order of ·the High Court must be confirmed because of the amendment of 
1956. 
The words used by the legislature in the amended section are 
F 
precise and admit of only one interpretation, namely, that nothing contained 
in the section limits thC time from the year of assessment within which pro-
ceedings should be taken for assessment or reassessment in consequence 
of or to give effec1 to an order of 1he revision'! aulhorily, (783 E-G; 78<1 
D-E; 785 H; 786. BJ 
Even assuming that the amendctl section applied only to pending pro-
ceedings. when the rcvisional authority made an order after examining the 
record directing the assessing officer to make a fresh assCM111ent. there was 
G 
a proceeding pending before such officer in pursuance of such direction. 
[786 EJ 
C!VIL APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil Appeal No. 830 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
March 3, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal 
H 
No. 3 of 1956. 
G. S. Pathak and S. P. Varma, for the appellants. 
' 
I 
A 
B 
.YAIPURIA BROS. v. STATE (Shah /.) 
781 
0. P. Rana, for the respondents, 
K. Srinivasan and R- Govalakr/shnan, for the intervener. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah".J, 
Th~ appellant-a public limited Compimy-having 
its registered office at Calcutta, was, with effect from October 5, 
1946, appointed sole agent for sale of goods manufactured· by the 
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company ]:.,td. On March 20, 1952, the 
Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur issued a notice under s. 21 of the 
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 calling upon the appellant Company 
to file a return of its turnover for the assessme11t year 1948-49 on 
the ground that rhe turnover had escaped assessment. 
On March 
c 
31, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer made a "best judgment" assess-
ment and determined the taxable turnover of the appellant Com-
pany at Rs. 50 lakhs for the year 1948-49 and determined the· 
appropriate tax liability. 
In the appeal to the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, the order passed; 
D by the Sales Tax Officer, was set aside, that authority holding that 
the appellant Company was not a dealer within the meaning of 
s. 2(c) of the Act. 
But the order of the appellate authority was 
set aside by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, by order dated 
March 28, 1955 and the case was remanded to the Sales Tax 
Officer for "fresh assessment". In the view of the Jlldge (Revi-
E sions) .Sales Tax, it was necesary to determine "the ownership of 
the goods at the t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.