1959 (9) TMI 45 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under Section 10(3) read with Section 11(4)(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Applicability of the three-year limitation period for issuing notices under Section 10(3) and Section 11(4)(a).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 10(3) read with Section 11(4)(a):

The petitioners, Messrs Ramkrishna Ramnath, were issued notices by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur, on 11th November 1957, and subsequently by the Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. 2, Nagpur, on 27th December 1958. These notices were issued under Section 10(3) read with Section 11(4)(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The petitioners contended that these notices were issued beyond the permissible period, citing the decision in Bisesar House v. State of Bombay, which held that notices under Section 11(2) could not be issued beyond three years from the date of the initial assessment. However, the court clarified that the present notices were not under Section 11(2) but under Section 10(3) read with Section 11(4)(a), which pertain to penalty and best judgment assessment respectively. The court emphasized that these sections serve different purposes compared to Section 11(2), which deals with the initiation of fresh assessment proceedings.

2. Applicability of the Three-Year Limitation Period:

The petitioners argued that if the three-year limitation period applied to Section 11(2), it should also apply to Section 10(3) and Section 11(4)(a). The court examined the Full Bench decision in Bisesar House, which was concerned with the initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 11(2). The court noted that the Full Bench's rationale was to prevent anomalous results where escaped income could be taxed beyond three years, which does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 10(3) or best judgment assessments under Section 11(4)(a). The court distinguished between proceedings for fresh assessment and those for penalizing defaults, stating that penalty proceedings do not equate to fresh assessment proceedings. The court further referenced previous decisions, including those from the Nagpur High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which supported the view that a three-year limitation period does not apply to Section 10(3) or Section 11(4)(a).

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the principles governing the interpretation of taxing statutes do not allow for the importation of a limitation period where the legislature has not explicitly provided one. The court held that the proceedings under Section 10(3) and Section 11(4)(a) are distinct from those under Section 11(2) and do not attract the three-year limitation period. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the notices issued to the petitioners.

Application Dismissed.