1975 (3) TMI 126 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice challenging the time limitation under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Interpretation of time limitation for passing a revisional order under section 20(3) of the Act.
3. Applicability of rule 66 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, to a notice for revision.
4. Consideration of notice as assessment and reassessment under section 11A of the Act.
5. Definition of "information" under section 11A for reassessment.
6. Comparison of powers of revision under section 20(3) and reassessment under section 11A.
7. Delegation of power for assessment, reassessment, and revision under the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the validity of a notice challenging the time limitation under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The single Judge held the notice invalid after a certain date based on a previous decision. However, a Division Bench later overruled this decision, stating there is no time limit for passing a revisional order under section 20(3) of the Act.

2. The interpretation of the time limitation for passing a revisional order under section 20(3) of the Act was crucial. The Division Bench clarified that the time limit mentioned in section 11(2a) applies only to the assessing authority, not to revisional orders. This overruled the previous decision and established that there is no period of limitation for exercising revision powers under section 20(3).

3. The applicability of rule 66 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, to a notice for revision was also discussed. The court determined that the rule's limitation of sixty days applies only when the revisional jurisdiction is invoked by an application, not when the Commissioner exercises suo motu powers. Therefore, the rule did not apply in this case.

4. The consideration of the notice as an assessment and reassessment under section 11A of the Act was analyzed. The court examined the conditions under section 11A, emphasizing the requirement of definite information for reassessment. The notice in question did not meet the criteria for reassessment under section 11A.

5. The definition of "information" under section 11A for reassessment was explored. The court referred to previous judgments to establish that the information must be derived from an external source and subsequent to the original assessment to trigger reassessment under section 11A.

6. A comparison of the powers of revision under section 20(3) and reassessment under section 11A was made. The court highlighted that the power of revision is broader and not subject to specific conditions like reassessment under section 11A.

7. Lastly, the delegation of power for assessment, reassessment, and revision under the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, was discussed. The court explained the differences in delegation and the nature of powers vested in different authorities for assessment, reassessment, and revision under the Act.