1974 (1) TMI 92 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was within the prescribed time limit.
2. Whether the appeal was accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of tax not disputed in the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of the Appeal
The primary issue was whether the petitioner's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was filed within the statutory time limit. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, was assessed a tax of Rs. 6,526 for the period from 1st April 1969 to 31st March 1970, based on a best judgment assessment by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer. The notice of demand was served on the petitioner on 24th November 1971. The petitioner applied for a copy of the assessment order on 29th December 1971, which was furnished on 21st January 1972. The appeal was filed on 2nd February 1972.

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed beyond the thirty-day period from the date of service of the notice of demand, as stipulated under Section 20 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the revision petition before the High Court.

The High Court examined the interpretation of "notice of assessment" under Section 20(2)(i) of the Act. The court considered whether the limitation period should commence from the date of the notice in Form No. 6 or from the date the assessment order recording reasons was served on the petitioner. The court referred to the earlier judgment in Giriyappa Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore, which supported the contention that the limitation period starts from the service of notice in Form No. 6. However, the High Court found this interpretation incorrect, emphasizing that the assessee must know the reasons for the assessment to prepare an appeal adequately.

The court cited Supreme Court decisions in Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, which held that the limitation period for appeals should commence from the date the affected party gains knowledge of the essential contents of the order. Applying this principle, the High Court concluded that the limitation period should start from the date the assessment order was served on the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's appeal was timely.

Issue 2: Proof of Payment of Undisputed Tax
The Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the tax not disputed in the appeal. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision. Since the High Court's primary focus was on the issue of limitation, it did not delve deeply into this aspect but noted the Tribunal's reversal.

Conclusion:
The High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision on the issue of limitation, holding that the petitioner's appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to readmit the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with the law, as the merits of the appeal had not been considered by either the Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.