LexTHE STATE OF ORISSA versus DABAKI DEVI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 253 rent by the plaintiffs would not by itself operate as waiver. As regards the last point, we have in fact dealt with it already. What was contended was that the notice of April I I, I 959 was not a valid notice with reference to both the Jaws, that is, the Transfer of Property Act and the Accommodation Act. We have pointed out that though the notice could be construed to be compo>ite notice it was ineffective in so far as it purports to be under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was not suggested that in so far as it was a notice under the Accommodation Act it was invalid. There is, therefore, nothing more to be said about it. For the foregoing reasons we uphold the decree of the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. THE STATE OF ORISSA v. DABAKI DEVI AND OTHERS (And connected appeals) (A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) Sales Tax-Revision against order of assessment-Time limit- Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa 14 o/1947), ss. 12, 23. The respondents were assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, by the Sales Tax Officer, who rejected their claim to certain deductions from their taxable turnover, but, on appeal, the Assistant Collector allowed the claim. The Collector of Sales Tax, however, acting under s. 23(3) of the Act revised the orders of the Assistant Collector by raising the taxable turnover allowed by him to be deducted. The respondents moved the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders of the Collector on the ground that they were illegal under the Act as they had been made more than thirty six months after the expiry of the quarters in respect of which the assessments had originally been made. The High Court took the view that the orders in revision were really reassessments under sub-s. (7) of s. 12 of the Act of turnover which had escaped assessment or been under assessed and as such they were barred by limitation. 1963 Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi Mudho/kar J. 1963 October 29 1963 The State of Orissa V. Dabaki Devi SarkarJ. 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] Held: (i) The view taken by the High Court that the impugned orders were really reassessments under s. 12(7) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, was erroneous. (ii) (per Das Gupta and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ ., Sarkar, J. dissenting). Orders of assessment made by the revising authority must be considered to be orders passed under s. 12 as well as under s. 23 of the Act and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed in the second proviso to s. 12 (6) became applicable. Gajo Ram v. State of Bihar, (1955) 7 S.T.C. 248, disapproved. per Sarkar, J.-(i) The time-limit of thirty-six months pres- cribed in s. 12(7) was only for calling for a return and not for making the order of reassessment in respect of escaped or under- ~ assessed turnover. · (ii) An order made in revision under s. 23(3) was not an order of assessment and the period of limitation in the second proviso to s. 12(6) was not applicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 454 to 465 of 1962. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 8, 1958 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.S. Nos. 289, 296 and 300 of 1956. K.N. Rajagopal Sastri and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant (In all the Appeals). Santosh Chatterjee and B. Kishore, for respondent No. 2 (In C.A. Nos. 454 to 460of1962) and the Respon- dents (Jn C.A. Nos. 461 to 465 of 1962.) The Judgment of K.C. Das Gupta and N. Raja- gopala Ayyangar JJ., was delivered by Das Gupta J. A.K. Sarkar J. delivered a dissenting opinion. SARKAR J.-These appeals raise the question whether the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, sets a time- limit for making an order under s. 23(3) of the Act revising an order of assessment. The question depends on the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Act to which reference will be made in due course. The facts are these. The respondents had been assessed to sales tax under the Act in respect of various quarters by a Sales Tax Officer. They appealed to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax against the t • 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 255 assessments contending that the Sales Tax Officer had wrongly rejected their claim to certain deductions from their taxable turnover. The appeals were allowed. Subsequen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.