1957 (5) TMI 34 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of a real and effective opportunity to show cause against the revision of assessment.
2. Revision of assessment being barred by the period of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of a real and effective opportunity to show cause against the revision of assessment:

The petitioner argued that he was denied a real and effective opportunity to show cause against the revision of the assessment and the inclusion of the disputed turnover of Rs. 56,279. He claimed that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur, did not furnish him with copies of relevant documents which he had requested. Specifically, these documents included lease deeds, certificates from village officers, and a certificate from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul, which the petitioner believed would prove that he was an agriculturist producing chillies and thus exempt from sales tax for the year 1952-53. Despite his requests, these documents were not provided.

However, the court noted that the petitioner had admitted the sale of chillies and the turnover was not in dispute. The petitioner had the opportunity to substantiate his claim with the records he had already provided and could have requested to inspect the original records with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur. The court found that the petitioner did not make any real attempt to substantiate his claim with the available records or any other records in his possession, including his books of account. The court was not convinced that the petitioner was denied an opportunity; rather, it seemed that the petitioner was maneuvering to raise debatable points in other proceedings. The court concluded that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to establish his claim that the turnover in dispute was exempt from taxation but failed to utilize them effectively.

2. Revision of assessment being barred by the period of limitation:

The petitioner contended that the revision of the assessment was barred by the relevant rule prescribing the period of limitation. Rule 17(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules initially provided a one-year period for assessing escaped turnover, which was later amended to two years on 7th February 1948, and subsequently to three years on 11th June 1953. The assessment year in question was 1952-53, which ended on 31st March 1953. The escaped turnover was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur, on 20th March 1956, within three years of the end of the assessment year.

The petitioner argued that the period of limitation should be two years, as per the rule in force at the end of the assessment year 1952-53. However, the court pointed out that before the two-year period expired, the rule was amended to provide a three-year period. The court referred to the principle that the law of limitation being procedural law operates retrospectively unless a right to sue had already become barred under the previous law. Since the period of limitation was extended before the original period expired, the amended three-year period applied to the petitioner's case. The court found the petitioner's contention that he had acquired a vested right to the two-year period of limitation to be untenable.

The court also referenced previous judgments to support its conclusion that the law of limitation is procedural and applies retrospectively unless a right had already become barred. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in either of the contentions put forward by the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged, with no order as to costs. The court found that the petitioner had not been denied a real and effective opportunity to show cause against the revision of assessment and that the revision was not barred by the period of limitation as the applicable period was three years, per the amended rule.