9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1969 (9) TMI 92 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxPetition filed by respondent No. 1 under article 226 of the Constitution was allowed and a notice dated March 11, 1963, issued to him under section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947), hereinafter called the Act, was quashed Held that - Appeal allowed. These again are matters which cannot be decided at this stage and it is for respondent No. 1 to show these and other relevant provisions to the authority by which the impugned notice has been issued and to satisfy it that production of accounts as called for will not be in conformity with the statutory provisions. At any rate it appears to us that the matter has to be decided under section 31(1) on the evidence and the accounts which are already on the record and no further or additional evidence can be called for and adduced.
Issues:
1. Retrospective effect of section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. 2. Applicability of section 19A for turnover escaping assessment. 3. Requirement to produce accounts beyond the statutory period. Analysis: Issue 1: Retrospective effect of section 31(1) The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Assam and Nagaland High Court, where a notice issued under section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 was quashed. The High Court held that the provisions of section 31(1) were not retrospective. However, during the appeal, the Assam Legislature amended the Act to give section 31(1) retrospective effect from December 24, 1947. The Supreme Court noted that the ground on which the High Court allowed the petition no longer existed due to the retrospective amendment. The Court held that the Commissioner could issue a valid notice under section 31(1) based on the legislative amendment, allowing for the revision of assessments. Respondent No. 1 was given the opportunity to demonstrate that his case did not fall under section 31(1) but was covered by section 19A, which dealt with turnover escaping assessment. Issue 2: Applicability of section 19A for turnover escaping assessment The counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the Commissioner should have taken action under section 19A for turnover escaping assessment instead of issuing a notice under section 31(1). Section 19A allowed for the reassessment of turnover that had escaped assessment within a specified period. However, the notice had been issued under section 31(1), leading to a limitation issue for several periods under assessment. The Supreme Court clarified that the retrospective effect of section 31(1) now allowed for a valid notice to be issued under that section, enabling the Commissioner to reassess the dealer. Issue 3: Requirement to produce accounts beyond the statutory period Respondent No. 1 objected to the requirement in the notice to produce accounts beyond the statutory preservation period of three years as per rule 62 of the Rules. The Court noted that the matter of producing accounts beyond the prescribed period could not be decided at that stage. Respondent No. 1 was advised to present relevant provisions to the issuing authority and demonstrate that producing accounts beyond the three-year limit was not in line with statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the decision under section 31(1) should be based on existing evidence and accounts on record, without the need for additional evidence beyond what was already available. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 was granted costs.
|
