1966 (2) TMI 67 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders exhibits P-3 and P-4.
2. Interpretation of rule 33 of the General Sales Tax Rules regarding escaped assessment.
3. Application of rule 33 to assessments made after remand by appellate authority.
4. Jurisdiction of revenue recovery proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought to quash assessment orders exhibits P-3 and P-4 and restrain the recovery of tax. The petitioner, a non-resident dealer, was assessed for the year 1957-58 under the General Sales Tax Act. The initial assessment was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, leading to a fresh assessment by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner challenged the subsequent orders, arguing they were barred by the time-limit specified in rule 33 of the General Sales Tax Rules.

2. The petitioner contended that the assessment order exhibit P-3 was beyond the time-limit prescribed by rule 33, making the proceedings illegal. The court considered the interpretation of rule 33, which allows for escaped assessments within three years. The government argued that rule 33 did not apply to assessments made after remand by appellate authorities. However, relying on Supreme Court decisions, the court held that assessments, whether original or after remand, must comply with the statutory time limits, as indicated by the provisions of the statute or rules.

3. The court rejected the government's argument that rule 33 did not apply to assessments post-remand. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasized that assessments by the Sales Tax Officer, whether suo motu or post-remand, must adhere to the statutory time limits. The court concluded that the assessments evidenced by exhibits P-3 and P-4 were beyond the period indicated by rule 33, entitling the petitioner to the relief of quashing those orders.

4. The court did not delve into the petitioner's argument regarding the jurisdiction of revenue recovery proceedings, as the main issue of the validity of assessment orders was resolved in favor of the petitioner. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed exhibits P-3 and P-4, and made no order as to costs, concluding the matter in favor of the petitioner.