NATHMAL TOLARAM versus SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES, DHUBRI AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 18-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

z960 
Octobef' z8. 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
. NATHMAL TOLARAM 
v. 
SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES, DHUBRI 
AND ANOTHER. 
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, ,JJ.) 
Sales Tax-Reassessment-] urisdiction of the 
Sales Tax 
Officer-High Court's power in References-Advisor>' jurisdiclion-
Period of limitation for proceedings for reassessment-Assam Sales 
Tax Act. r947 (Assam r7 of r947), ss. 2(r2). r6(2), r9, r9A, 32(8), 
34. 
The appellants who were dealers registered under the Assam 
Sales Tax Act, r947, submitted a return of their turnover for 
the account period April I, r948 to September 30, r948, which 
included sales in Assam of all goods other than jute. The 
Superintendent of Taxes, however, summarily assessed the 
appellants under sub-s. 4 of s. 17 of the Act by order dated 
September 30, 1950, to pay tax on sales of jute despatched by 
them to Calcutta during the account period. The order of 
assessment was confirmed by the Commissioner of Taxes. On 
an application by the appellants the Commissioner referred 
certain questions of law arising out of the assessment to the 
High Court, which then gave its opinion that as the consign-
ments in question were not sales within the meaning of sub-s. 12 
of s. 2 of the Act, they were not taxable, and that as to whether 
the sales could thereafter be assessed if they fell within the 
purview of the Explanation to sub-s. 12 of s. 2, it expressed no 
opinion. On receipt of the opinion the Commissioner directed 
the Superintendent of Taxes to dispose of the case in accordance 
with the judgment of the High Court. The Superintendent of 
Taxes then set aside the order of assessment dated September 
30, r950, and issued a notice to the appellants on January 30, 
r953, directing them to produce the necessary evidence in order 
to enable him to ascertain whether the contract of sale involved 
in the case came within the purview of the ExpJanation to sub-
s. 12 of s. 2 of the Act. The appellant claimed that the Super-
intendent had no jurisdiction to commence any further proceed-
ing for assessment as the notice issued to him was beyond three 
years from the end of the assessment period as provided by s. rg 
of the Act. 
Held, that the High Court in answering the questions 
refetred to it was exercising an advisory jurisdiction and could 
not and did not give any direction to the sales tax authorities 
to proceed to assess or not to assess the appellants to sales tax; 
it merely gave its opinion that the transactions were not sales 
within the meaning of s. 2, sub-s. 12 of the Act and were accord-
ingly not taxable. 
• 
: 
' 
; 
! 
~ 
• 
• 
' 
.. 
" 
• 
t'
' ' 
• 
'~ 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
41 
Held,. further, that the Commissioner not having issued any 
I96° 
i.. 
notice under s. l9A of the Act or exercised his revisional autho-
-
rity under s. 31, but having merely directed the case to be Nathmal Tola.am 
disposed of in accordance with the judgment of the High Court, 
v. 
the Superintendent of Taxes had no jurisdiction to initiate Sitperintendmt 
fresh proceedings for reassessment under s. 19 after the expiry 
of Taxes 
of three years from the assessment period. 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden 
and others v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd., (1936) L.R. 63 I. A. 
408, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: . Civil Appeal 
No. 196 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
..,. 
order dated April 27, 1953, of the Assam High Court 
in Civil Rule No. 66 of 1953. 
Sukumar Mitter and Sukumar Ghose, for the appel. 
lant. 
· 
~ 
Veda Vyasa and Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 
1960. October 18. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH J.-The appellants are dealers registered un-
der the Assam Sales Tax Act XVII of 1947-herein-
after referred to as the Act. For the account period 
April 1, 1948 to September 30, 1948, the appellants 
submitted a return of their turnover which included 
sales in Assam of all goods other than jute. The 
Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, summarily assessed 
the appellants under sub-s. 4 of s. 17 of the Act to pay 
tax on sales of jute despatched by them to Calcutta 
during the account- period. Appeals against the order 
of assessment to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes 
and to the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, proved 
unsuccessful. 
The appellants then applied to the 
Commissioner of Taxe,s to refer certain questions aris-
ing out of the asses

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