SALES-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-I, JABALPUR versus HANUMAN PRASAD

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 11-10-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SALES-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-I, JABALPUR 
V. 
HANUMAN PRASAD 
October 11, 1966 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMAsWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.j 
Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (M. P. Act 2 of 1959) ss. 
19(1) and 52-Assessment under repealed.Act-Reassessment-Perio4 of 
limitation-Amendment of s. 19(1)-Proviso--Efject. 
Pending assessment to Sales-tax of respondent's turnover under the 
Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 194 7, the Madhya · Pradesh 
General Sales Tax Act, 1958, came into force repealing the former Act. 
Thereupon, the respondent was assessed to tax under s. 11-A(l) of the 
repealed Act. After more than three years from this assessment, the Sales 
Tax Officer issued a notice for reassessment under s. 19(1) of the new Act, 
which provided five years period for reopening escaped assessment. Tho 
:respondent objected that his sales had been assessed under the repealed 
Act, where the limitation of three years for reassessment was prescribed 
and the proviso to s. 19(1) of the new Act preserved the rights acquired 
under the repealed Act. The Sales-tax Officer rejected the objection. The 
respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed. 
Thereafter, the principal clause of s. 19(1) was amended retrospectively 
to include a56essments under the repealed Act. In appeal to this Court. the 
appellant Sales-tax Officer, contended that the main clause of s. 19(1) was 
applicable and that by the subsequent amendment to s. 19(1), the principal 
cliuse became applicable to cases assessed under the repealed Act and not 
the proviso. 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
The mere enforcement of the new Act by the time the order of asseos-
ment was passed by the Sales-tax Officer could not lead to the conclusion 
that the assessment was made under the new Act and not under repealed 
Act. [833 HI 
-
The assessment, after enforcement of the new Act, was an assessment in 
accordance with the rights and liabilities of the respondent under the re-
pealed Act; so the proviso to s. 19{ 1) of the new Act was appllcable. The 
proviso to s. 52 of the new Act also preserved this right of the respondent. 
[834 El 
Even if the effect of the subsequent amending Act was that under the 
principal clause of s. 19(1) the reassessment could be taken up within a 
period of five years, that provision became ineffective because of the conti-
nued existence of the proviso. 
A proviso is added to a principal clause primarily with the object of 
talrlng out of the scope of that principal clause what is included in it. and 
what the Legislature desires should be excluded. [835 DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 28, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 381 of 1962. 
A. P. Sen, Advocate-General, Madhya Pradesh and I. N. 
Shroff, for the appellant. 
Yogeshwar Prasad and M .. V. Goswami, for the respondent. 
832 
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS 
(1967] I S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bbargan, J, The respondent was a registered dealer carrying 
on the business of selling goods liable to sales-tax under the Cen-
tral Provinces and Bcrar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred 
to as "the repealed Act"). For the period from 3rd November, 
1956 to 23rd October, 1957, the respondent filed his return, which 
was not accepted by. the Sales-tax Officer, who, on March 10, 1959, 
issued a notice in Form XII to the respondent. Subsequent to this 
notice, on May 23, 1959, the turnover of the sales of the respon-
dent was assessed to tax under s. I 1(4)(a) of the repealed Act. In 
the meantime, on April I, 1959 the Madhya Pradesh General Sales 
Tax Act, 1958 (Act No. II of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as "the 
new Act") came into force. 
On October 23, 1962, the Sales-tax 
Officer discovered that part of the turnover of the respondent for 
the period mentioned above had escaped assessment and issued a 
notice under s. 19(1) of the new Act. The respondent raised a 
preliminary objection that his sales had been assessed under the 
repealed Act. under which the Limitation of a period of three years 
was prescribed by section 11-A for assessment of escaped turnover. 
The Sales-tax Officer rejected that objection by his order dated 
29th October, 1962, and decided to proceed with the reassessment. 
Thereupon, the respondent moved a petition under Articles 226 and 
227 of the Constitution 

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