LexTHE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. versus M/S. BISWANATH JHUNJHUNWALA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. v. MIS. BISWANATH JHUNJHUNWALA AND ANR. AUGUST 20, 1996 B [S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) SALES TAX: Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 and Bengal Sales Tax Rules 1941, C Rule 80(5)(ii) as amended-Amendment in 1974, made effective from November j; 1991, enabling Revenue to reopen assessments made more than six years previously-Whether amendment prospective and applied only to assessments made after November 1, 1971--Held, no; on a plain meaning, amendment enabled reopening of assessments having become final six years previousl~-lnterpretation of Statutes. D The assessment of first respondent, a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for the assessment year Chaitra Sudi 2023 and 2024 were completed on February 17 and March 26, 1969 respec- tively. Under the unamended Rule 80(5) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, E 1941, the assessment could have been reopened only within a period of four years. l}nder Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (3rd Amendment) Act 1974 s. 26(1) of the Act was substituted to enable the State Government to make Rules with retrospective effect Pursuant thereto, a government notifica- tion was issued on March 30, 1974 amending with effect from November 1, 1971, Rule 80(S)(ii) to enali>le assessments made more than six years F previously to be reopened. The tax authorities issued notices on November 7, 1974 to the respondent reopening the completed assessments for the years Chaitra Sudi 2023-2024. The respondent in a writ Petition before the Calcutta High G Court challenged the legality of the notices. The High Court held that the reopening of the assessments stood barred on the date the amendment was made andl that the notification did not confer any power of revision of assessment which stood barred on the date on which it was issued. Accord- ingly, High Court quashed the notice. H In this court, the appellant contended that since the notification 286 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER v. BISWANATHJHUN.IHUNWALA 'lf37 provided that from which the amended period of six years would operate, A the notices were valid. The respondent on the other hand contended that the words "with effect from November 1, 1971" has to be read as meaning that the amended provision would be applicable to assessments made after November l, 1971. Allowing the appeal, this court HELD : 1. By. reason of the Notification, with effect from November B 1, 1971, Rule 80(5)(ii) has to be read as barring the Commissioner (or other authority to whom power in this behalf had been delegated by the Commissioner), from revising of his own motion any assessment made or C order passed under the Act or the rules if the assessment has been made or the order has been passed more than six years previous to 1st Novem- ber, 1971. This being the plain meaning, the said Notification has to be given full effect. Full effect could be given only if the said Notification is read as being applicable not only to assessments which were incomplete but also to assessments which had reached finality by reason of the earlier D prescribed period of four years having elapsed. Where language as unam- biguous as this is employed, it must be assumed that the Legislature intended the amended provision to apply even to assessments that had so become final : if the intention was otherwise, the Legislature would have so stated. [294-A-B] E S.S. Gadgil, Income Tax Officer, Bombay v. Lal and Co., [1964] 8 SCR 72; J.P. Jani, Income Tax Officer v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt, 72 l.T.R 595; The Income Tax Offiw; Madras v. S.K. Habibullah, Madras, [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 716 and Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico P1inti11g Co. Ltd. v. S.C. Mehta, Income Tax Officer and Anotlw; [1963] Supp. 2 SCR F 92 , referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 716 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.78 of the Calcutta High G Court in 0.0. No. 848 of 1976. Tapas Ray, G.S. Chaltarje, Ms. Aruna Banerjee for Sinha and Das. H.N. Salve, Anil Agrawala and K.V. Viswanathan for the Respon- dents. H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. The correctness of the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta is under challenge in this appeal by the Commercial Tax authorities of the State of West Bengal. B The first respondent was the sole proprietory concern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.